header-logo header-logo

05 August 2010 / Kenneth Warner
Issue: 7429 / Categories: Features , Defamation
printer mail-detail

Malice aforethought

Kenneth Warner explores the tort of malicious falsehood

In the course of its historical evolution, the tort of malicious falsehood has been known by various names, but the earlier title of slander of goods gives the best gist of its purpose. It is meant to afford a remedy where the business interest of the plaintiff, (as opposed to the plaintiff’s character) has been impugned by a statement published by the defendant. To found the action it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that the statement is untrue, that it was published with malice, and that an economic loss has been suffered as a consequence.

As to “malice”, the courts have not taken a consistent approach. At the different ends of the spectrum, an intention to cause injury will certainly suffice, whereas evidence of good faith will destroy the claim. But there is authority that knowledge that the statement is untrue, or even the absence of any honest belief that it is true, will suffice. As to damage; it is accepted that the plaintiff bears the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll