A newspaper published an anonymous letter containing statements that the pursuer, a salaried official, was unfit for his post as a teacher in a public school. It was argued that the ratepayers and inhabitants of the neighbourhood had an interest and a right to know the contents of what was published. There was no room for the defence of privilege, so there was no need for the pursuer to plead malice. The court did not need to decide whether a member of the public, in attacking any person holding any office under any public body, was entitled to the defence of privilege. It was difficult to see what duty or right there was on the part of a member of the public, as such, to criticise the conduct of a public servant who was in the public employment.
Judges:
Lord McLaren
Citations:
(1892) 19 R 383
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Followed – Brims v Reid and Sons 1885
A newspaper had published an anonymous letter concerning the fitness for office of the pursuer who was seeking re-election as a member of a town council and to the public office of Dean of Guild. The publisher refused to disclose the name of the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.194523