Griffin v. Divers and Sherry [1922] ScotLR 453 (24 June 1922)

Griffin v. Divers and Sherry [1922] ScotLR 453 (24 June 1922)

Given the pursuer's averments of context, motive, and malice, the statement was capable of bearing the defamatory innuendo alleged, and the case could not be disposed of without inquiry. The occasion was privileged, but malice was sufficiently averred to allow the issues to go to proof. The Lord Ordinary's dismissal was incorrect; issues should be allowed to proceed to trial.

Citation
[1922] ScotLR 453
Parties
Pursuer: William Griffin; Defender: John James Divers; Defender: Owen Sherry
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 June 1922
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/slander) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House
Outcome
Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; issues of slander as adjusted allowed to proceed to trial; cause remitted for further procedure.
Legal Topics
Slander, Innuendo, Malice, Qualified Privilege, Damages, Verbal Injury
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Slander Innuendo Malice Qualified Privilege Damages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Griffin

Pursuer

John James Divers

Defender

Owen Sherry

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/slander) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement that the pursuer signed a requisition for a poll under the Temperance (Scotland) Act 1913, in the context averred, is capable of bearing a defamatory innuendo of hypocrisy and treachery; whether the occasion was privileged; whether malice was sufficiently averred to defeat privilege; whether issues of slander and/or public odium and contempt should be allowed to go to proof.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the pursuer's averments of context, motive, and malice, the statement was capable of bearing the defamatory innuendo alleged, and the case could not be disposed of without inquiry. The occasion was privileged, but malice was sufficiently averred to allow the issues to go to proof. The Lord Ordinary's dismissal was incorrect; issues should be allowed to proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; issues of slander as adjusted allowed to proceed to trial; cause remitted for further procedure.

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor dismissing the action
  • Approval of pursuer's adjusted issues for trial