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 onus of proving that the statement caused them economic loss.

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll