AB v. CD [1904] ScotCS CSIH_6 (01 November 1904)

AB v. CD [1904] ScotCS CSIH_6 (01 November 1904)

Statements made by a witness in court are absolutely privileged and cannot form the basis of an action for damages for slander. A medical professional's disclosure of confidential information may be actionable only if the disclosure is specific, not privileged, and amounts to defamation or an actionable breach of confidence. The pursuer failed to specify actionable statements for the breach of confidence issue, and the issues overlap such that double damages cannot be allowed. The issue of alleged slander outside court may proceed to trial, subject to proof of malice if privilege is established.

Citation
[1904] ScotCS CSIH_6
Parties
Pursuer: A B; Defender: C D
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 November 1904
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal on Issues to Be Sent to Trial
Outcome
Interlocutory appeal allowed in part; first issue (breach of confidence) disallowed; second issue (alleged slander outside court) allowed to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Witness Privilege, Defamation, Confidentiality, Medical Confidentiality, Privilege in Judicial Proceedings
Delict Medical Law Witness Privilege Defamation Confidentiality Medical Confidentiality Privilege in Judicial Proceedings

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A B

Pursuer

C D

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal on Issues to Be Sent to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made by a witness in court are absolutely privileged from actions for damages for slander
  2. 2 Whether a medical professional's disclosure of confidential patient information to a third party (the patient's husband) is actionable as a breach of confidence or defamation
  3. 3 Whether privilege attaches to statements made by a medical professional outside court in the context of litigation

Ratio Decidendi

Statements made by a witness in court are absolutely privileged and cannot form the basis of an action for damages for slander. A medical professional's disclosure of confidential information may be actionable only if the disclosure is specific, not privileged, and amounts to defamation or an actionable breach of confidence. The pursuer failed to specify actionable statements for the breach of confidence issue, and the issues overlap such that double damages cannot be allowed. The issue of alleged slander outside court may proceed to trial, subject to proof of malice if privilege is established.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory appeal allowed in part; first issue (breach of confidence) disallowed; second issue (alleged slander outside court) allowed to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • First issue (breach of confidence) disallowed; not to be sent to trial.
  • Second issue (alleged slander outside court) allowed; to proceed to trial before a jury.