Civil

Mitchell v. Smith

[1919] ScotCS 56SLR0578Court of Session1919

“Opinion per Lord Mackenzie, concurred in by Lord Cullen, that malice would not have been sufficiently averred by a mere statement that the defender made the defamatory averment knowing it to be untru…”

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Mitchell v. Smith. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Civil cases

Seyi Omooba v Michael Garrett Associated Limited (T/A Global Artists) & Anor

[2026] EWCA Civ 253

Lloyd Parker v West Midlands Trains Limited

[2026] EWCA Civ 357

John Textor v Iconic Sports Eagle Investment LLC

[2026] EWCA Civ 355

Hampshire County Council v GC & Anor

[2026] EWCA Civ 20

Peakstone Commerce Limited v Aziz Abdul Hozan Rahman

[2026] EWCA Civ 347

Kamran Safi v Secretary of State for the Home Department

[2026] EWCA Civ 149

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.