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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll