Tuesday, 12 April 2016


Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street


11 October 2010



Mr Ian Todd



PO Box 26300




Dear Mr Todd,

I refer to your letter dated 7 October 2010.

The draft writ that was enclosed along with my email dated 7 October 2010 categorically states the defender to be John McNeill, not the PCCS as an organisation.

Fundamental to any legal issue is the accurate identification of separate legal entities.  

As I pointed out in my letter dated 7 October 2010, according to Kenneth McK Norrie’s book, Defamation and Related Actions in Scots Law, Butterworths, (1995), at page 74:

‘An individual is liable for his or her own delicts, committed either personally or through the medium of another. To instruct one’s employee to defame another is to commit the wrong oneself (though the employee will be personally liable too). If more than one person joins in the defamation each is personally liable for the whole loss to the pursuer, for, notwithstanding that the defamation is committed by more than one person, liability is individual and not joint and several.’ 

Actions against the PCCS or any individuals who repeat defamatory statements about me would of course also be competent should I choose to draft and present them to the Court of Session. But I have not as yet proposed any action for defamation against your organisation and certainly not in the draft writ sent with my email on 7 October 2010.

In my letter to the PCCS dated 26 June 2010 I included the following relevant points:

‘Thirdly, any person who knowingly repeats defamatory material about me would thereby be acting maliciously and would be personally liable in a substantial claim for solatium in which there would not be a requirement for any monetary loss to be proved, in which the onus of proof that the defamatory statements are in fact true would be on the defender, and in which the element of malice would preclude any defence of qualified privilege.’

‘Fourthly, any professional who knowingly misrepresents the law or important facts could be investigated for professional misconduct.’   

You have acted disgracefully. Your conduct has misled the PCCS as an organisation and any individuals who have seen or heard what you have written to me and you have compounded the damage to my reputation thereby.

Consequently, I want to raise a formal complaint against you for falsely accusing me of threatening defamation proceedings that would require to be defended by your ‘organisation’.

Clearly the PCCS as an organisation is not the same legal entity as Mr John McNeill.

You ought to be very careful not to interfere on behalf of the PCCS in a private civil action that has nothing to do with your organisation.

Pressurising one of the parties in a legal action that has nothing to do with your organisation could reasonably be regarded as an attempt to pervert the course of justice, a very serious criminal matter.

Please inform me whether or not you are a solicitor or an advocate.

If you are you should also regard this letter as a formal complaint of unprofessional conduct and in the absence of an appropriate response within 4 weeks I may present a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Since I have reason to believe that the PCCS has recorded more inaccurate personal information about me since my last request I formally request subject access disclosures under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Yours sincerely,

                                 Eddie Cairns.

No comments: