header-logo header-logo

Malice aforethought

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll