M'Larty v. Steele

Subject_1 Foreign Subject_2 Process Subject_3 Lex fori Subject_4 Verbal Slander. Facts: In an action raised by a Scotchman, resident in Glasgow, in the Court of Session for alleged verbal slander uttered at Penang by another Scotchman who had subsequently returned to this country, the defender proposed an issue as to whether, according to the law of that place, reparation was due unless special damage was averred by the pursuer. The Court refused the [issue, on the ground that the rights of parties must be determined as if the slander had been uttered in Scotland.

He pleaded—“(1) The defender having slandered the pursuer as condescended on, to the pursuer's loss, injury, and damage, the pursuer is entitled to reparation as concluded for. (2) The defender's averment of foreign law is irrelevant.”

He pleaded—“(1) The action being for alleged oral slander in Penang, is incompetent. (2) The statements in the condescendence are not relevant or sufficient to support the conclusions of the summons. (3) The whole material statements of the pursuer being unfounded in fact, the defender is entitled to absolvitor, with expenses.”

The pursuer proposed four issues, while the defender proposed the following counter-issue:—“Whether according to the law of Penang and Singapore no reparation is due for verbal slander unless special damage is proved to have been sustained through said verbal slander?”

The Lord Ordinary disallowed the defender's issue, approving of those proposed by the pursuer.