Malicious falsehood—Libel and slander—Choice of action

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Sedley, Rimer LJJ and Sir Scott Baker, 2 June 2010

The “single meaning” rule, although relevant in defamation proceedings, has no applicability to the tort of malicious falsehood.

James Price QC and Matthew Nicklin (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP) for the claimant. Andrew Caldecott QC and Manuel Barca (instructed by Kempner Robinson LLP) for the defendant.

The claimant was the European limb of one of the world’s major producers and suppliers of the sugar substitute aspartame. The defendant was a large supermarket chain, which sold its own brand of health foods. Some of those contained a message typically reading “No artificial colours or flavours and no aspartame”. The claimant brought proceedings in malicious falsehood. The judge found that two possible meanings would be derived by consumers: (i) that there was a risk that aspartame was harmful or unhealthy, as alleged by the claimant; and (ii) that the foods