Munro v. Brown [2011] ScotCS CSOH_117 (06 July 2011)

Munro v. Brown [2011] ScotCS CSOH_117 (06 July 2011)

The defender failed to prove the truth of the defamatory statement; the pursuer was not asked to play and did not refuse. The defender's statement was false and defamatory, causing reputational harm and distress. Damages awarded to compensate for injury to reputation and feelings.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_117
Parties
Pursuer: Gail Munro; Defender: Derek Brown
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Proof Before Answer, Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for pursuer
Legal Topics
Veritas Defence, Damages, Reputation, Solatium
Defamation Delict Veritas Defence Damages Reputation Solatium

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gail Munro

Pursuer

Derek Brown

Defender

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Proof Before Answer, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defender's statement that pursuer refused to play for Scotland was true
  2. 2 Whether pursuer was defamed by defender's statement
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum of damages for defamation

Ratio Decidendi

The defender failed to prove the truth of the defamatory statement; the pursuer was not asked to play and did not refuse. The defender's statement was false and defamatory, causing reputational harm and distress. Damages awarded to compensate for injury to reputation and feelings.

Court Disposition

Judgment for pursuer

Orders

  • Defender to pay pursuer £21,950 with interest at eight per cent per annum from date of decree until payment
  • All questions of expenses reserved