Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Peter Winn raised an action of damages against James Quillan for having falsely and calumniously on six separate occasions, extending over a period of ten years, called him an informer, thereby representing that the pursuer was a man who for the sake of reward and from sinister and disreputable motives had betrayed his fellows and disclosed secrets or given information to the Crown or its executive against Irishmen and others, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer.

The Court sustained the relevancy of the action ( ante, p. 38), and six issues were adjusted, one for each occasion, and damages laid at £500.

The case was tried before the Lord Justice-Clerk and a jury. The jury returned a verdict for the pursuer on all the issues and assessed the damages at one farthing. Thereafter, on the application of the pursuer, made without intimation to and not in the presence of the defender, the Lord Justice—Clerk granted the pursuer a certificate to the effect that the action was brought for vindication of character and was fit to be tried in the Court of Session.

The pursuer moved for his expenses, and argued—The presiding judge who had tried the case had granted a certificate, and this showed that in his opinion the pursuer was entitled to expenses. Where a pursuer succeeded in obtaining a verdict and damages for slander, and received a certificate from the judge presiding at the trial, he was entitled to his expenses even though the damages given were nominal— Craig v. Jex Blake, July 7, 1871, 9 Macph. 973; Bonnar v. Roden, June 1, 1887, 14 R. 761; Macmillan v. Wilson, October 25, 1887, 15 R. 6. Where the pursuer had failed on some of his issues there might be modification— Rogers v. Dick, February 4, 1864, 2 Macph. 591— but in the present case he had been successful all along the line.

Argued for defender—The statute only provided for what was to happen as regards expenses in the event of the pursuer not getting a certificate from the judge; it did not say what expenses he was to get in the event of his getting a certificate. This question was accordingly left to be determined by the common law. The Court were entitled to modify expenses in actions which ought to have been brought in the Sheriff Court or where juries had awarded small sums of damages— Jamieson v. Hartil, February 5, 1898, 25 R. 551; Shearer v. Malcolm, February 16, 1899, 1 F. 574. And in Graham v. Napier, January 21, 1874, 1 R. 391, the expenses were modified notwithstanding that the certificate had been granted. The present was a typical case for modification. It should have been brought in the Sheriff Court; there had been unnecessary delay, and some of the issues were superfluous.