Tesla Motors Ltd and another company v British Broadcasting Corporation [2011] EWHC 2760 (QB), [2011] All ER (D) 233 (Oct)
If a trader made a claim for malicious falsehood and, as he was entitled to do, he relied not on any actual damage, but on probable damage such as was referred to in s 3 of the Defamation Act 1952, the claimant nevertheless had to give particulars of the nature of the allegedly probable damage and the grounds relied on for saying that it was more likely than not. For example, if what was relied on was the probability of such a trader having to incur expenses in advertising and other forms of publicity in order to counter the effects of the alleged falsehoods, then the particulars of claim should identify that probable damage.
On the other hand, the damage which, it was said, was more likely than not to be a consequence of the alleged falsehood, might be delay in sales of a given number, or loss of sales of a given number, or the difference between the price at which goods would be saleable following
