Shaw v. Burns [1911] ScotLR 432 (08 February 1911)

Shaw v. Burns [1911] ScotLR 432 (08 February 1911)

The pursuer's averments of malice, though not ample, were sufficient to entitle him to prove the general relations with the defender and to allow a jury to decide if the defender's action was motivated by private spite rather than legitimate use of rights. The alleged damage, though minimal, was a consequence of the information given to the police, and the issue as framed was competent. The reclaiming motion was refused and the issue approved.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 432
Parties
Pursuer: Andrew Shaw; Defender: William Burns
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 February 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil Reparation (damages) / Inner House, First Division Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Approval of Issue
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; issue approved; case remitted for trial
Legal Topics
Wrongful Information to Police, Malice, Reparation, Competency of Issue, Consequent Damage
Delict Tort Defamation Malicious Prosecution Wrongful Information to Police Malice Reparation Competency of Issue +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Shaw

Pursuer

William Burns

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Reparation (damages) / Inner House, First Division Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Approval of Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether malice was relevantly averred in the pursuer's pleadings
  2. 2 Whether the alleged damage was too remote to be put in issue
  3. 3 Whether the form of the issue to the jury was competent

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments of malice, though not ample, were sufficient to entitle him to prove the general relations with the defender and to allow a jury to decide if the defender's action was motivated by private spite rather than legitimate use of rights. The alleged damage, though minimal, was a consequence of the information given to the police, and the issue as framed was competent. The reclaiming motion was refused and the issue approved.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; issue approved; case remitted for trial

Orders

  • Court adhered to Lord Ordinary's approval of the issue.
  • Motion to vary the issue refused.