malicious falsehood

8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood

1/16

1 | P a g e

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PROJECT REPORT ON

MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD

SUBMITTED TO:-

Mr. Harish Salve

SUBMITTED BY:-

Shashi kumar

Roll no.-1047

BBA.LLB


2/16

2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CASES

Ractliffe vs. evans, 1892

P.K. Oswal Hosiery Mills vs. Tilak chand, A.I.R.1969 Punjab 150, 159

Brook vs. Rawl (1849) 4 Ex 521

Ravenhill vs. upcott(1869) 20 LT 233

Odgers, libel and slander, p. 70

Malachy vs soper (1839) 2 Bing NC 371

Gutsole vs. mathers (1836) 1 M & 1 W 495

Evans vs. Harlow (1844) 5QB 624

Hatchard vs. Mege (1887) 18 QBD771

Dunlop pneumatic tyre co. vs maison tailbot (1904) 20 TR 579British Railway traffic & electric co. vs. CRC co. (1922) 2 KB 260

Barret vs. associated newspapers (1907) 23 TLR 666

Casey vs. Arnot (1876) 2 CPD 24

Hargovind vs. Kikabhai (1938) ILR Nag 348, AIR 1938 Nag 84

PKOH Mills vs. Tilakchand, AIR 1969 Punj 150

Malachy vs. soper (1836) 3 Bing NC 371

Peter vs. Baker (1847) 3 Bing NC 371

Halsey vs. brotherhood (1880) 15 Ch D 514

Griffiths vs benn (1911) 27 TLR 346

Cundey vs. lerwill & pike (1908) 24 TLR 584

Leetham vs. Rank (1912) 57 sol jour 111

Young vs. macrae (1862) 3 B & S 264

Shapiro vs. Lal moita (1923) 40 TLR 203

Wren vs. weild (1869) LR 4 QB 730

White vs. Mellin (1895) AC 154

Balden vs. Shorter (1933) CH 427

Tobacco co. vs. Bonnan AIR 1928 Cal 1

Steward vs. young (1870) LR 5 CP 122

Hatchard vs. mege (1887) 18 QBD 771

Lewis vs. Lewis (1895) 1 All ER 1005

White vs mellin (1895) Ac 154

British Railway Traffic & electric co. vs CRC Co. (1922) 2 KB 260.

Singer Machine manufacturers vs. Wilson (1876) 2 Ch D 343

Ainsworth vs. Walmsley (1866) LR 1 Eq 518

Gujarat G & M Co. vs. Swadeshi MillsCo., AIR 1939 Bom 118

Blofeld vs. Payne *(1833) 4B & Ad 410


3/16

3 | P a g e

Draper vs. Trist (1939) 3 All ER 513 (CA)

Singer mfg. co. vs. Loog (1882) 8 AC 15

Indian dental works vs. Dhanakoti AIR 1962 Mad 127

Draper vs. trist (1939) 3 ALL ER 513 (CA)

Reddway vs. Bentham Hemp Spinninig co. (1892) 2 QB 639

Haji jamal & co. vs Abdul Kareem & co.(1933) ILR 57 Mad 600

Malayan tobacco distributors vs. The united king tobacco, AIR 1933 PC 138

Singer machine manufacturer vs. Wilson (1876) 2 Ch D 434

Warwick tyre co. vs. new motor and general rubber co. (1910) 1 Ch 248

Thomas bear & sons vs. prayag (1940) ILR ALL 446, AIR 1940 PC 86

Ford vs, Foster (1872) LR 7 Ch 611

Upendra nath vs. The union Drug co. AIR 1926 cal 837

Unani Dawkhana Vs. Hamdard AIR 1930 Lah 999

Fels vs hedley (1930) 20 TLR 69

Linoleum manufg. Co. vs Nairn (1878) 7 Ch D 834

Canadian shredded wheat co. ltd. Vs. Kellog co. of Canada ltd. 1938 PCC 143

Rogger vs. Findlater (1873) LR 17 Eq 29

Coca cola co. of Canada vs. pepsi-cola co. of Canada ltd. (1942) 1 ALL ER 615 (PC)

(1896) AC 199

Imperial tobacco co. vs Bonnan (1924) ILR 51 cal 892 PC

Meera sahib vs. Abdul Aziz (1938) ILR Mad 466

The leather cloth co. vs. American leather cloth co. (1863) 4 De GJ & S 137

M mahendra shaw vs.tiruchy floor mills, trichy 1997(2) ALD 251

Leather cloth co. vs. American leather cloth co. (1865) 11 HLC 523

National Bank of india vs. National bank of Indore (1922) 24 Bom LR 1181

Day vs. Brownrig (1878) 10 Ch D 294

Street vs. Union bank of spain (1885) 30 Ch D 156

Hinnes vs Winnick (1947) Ch 708

Servile vs. Constance (1954) 1 ALL ER 662

Forbes vs. kemsley newspapers (1951) 2 TLR 656

McCullock vs. Lewis May ltd. (1947) 2 ALL ER 845

Dockrell vs. Dougall (1899) 80 LT 556

Section 478-489, IPC

Mohammd Raja vs. E, AIR 1930 Oudh 360

Section 48-86, IPC

Slazenger vs. Fentham (1889) 6RPC 531

Upmann vs. Elkann (1871) LR 12 Eq 140

Ractliff vs. Evans (1892) 2 Qb 524

Shephered vs. Wakeman (1661) 1 Sid 79


4/16

4 | P a g e

Dixon vs. Holden (1869) LR 7 Eq 488

Riding vs. Smith (1876) 1 Ex D 91

Shapiro vs. La morta (1923) 40 TLR 201


5/16

5 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

Malicious falsehood consists in making malicious statements concerning the plaintiff to some

third person adversely affecting the pecuniary interest of the plaintiff. This wrong is similar

to defamation because in this case, as in defamation, a statement made to third person, causes

damage to the plaintiff. However the two wrongs are much different. In defamation the

reputation of plaintiff is affected and in malicious falsehood, in malicious falsehood, the

pecuniary interest of plaintiff is affected. Moreover in the case of defamation, malice in the

sense of an evil motive is not necessary. An evil motive is one of the important essential

ingredients of the wrong of malicious falsehood. Malicious falsehood has a common point

with the wrong of deceit that false statement made by the defendant causes loss to the

plaintiff. But the difference is that in the wrong of deceit, the statement is made to the

plaintiff himself and thus he suffers by acting upon it and in the case of malicious falsehood,

the false statement is made to the third party in a way that proves injurious to the plaintiffs

pecuniary interest. A malicious statement by the defendant that the plaintiffs business has

been closed down would result in pecuniary loss to the plaintiff because the natural

consequence of that is the loss of his customers. It is the malicious falsehood for which the

defendant would be liable.1

The defamation act,1952(English) makes it unnecessary to prove

special damages in case of malicious falsehood :

(a) If the words upon which action is founded are calculated to cause pecuniary loss tothe plaintiff and are published in writing or other permanent form, or

(b) If the said words are calculated to cause the plaintiff pecuniary damage in respect ofany, office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the

time of publication.2

Important form of this wrong are slander of title and slander of goods. In the wrong of slanderof title , there is a malicious statement about a persons property or business and does not

relate necessarily to his personal reputation, but to his title to property or his business or

generally to his material interest.3For example, a false assertion that the defendant has alien

over the plaintiffs good or he has a better titleto them than that of plaintiff is slander of title.

When the malicious statement relates to goods, then it is known as slander of goods, For

example allegation of defects in the goods manufactured by plaintiff. The obvious defect of

1. ractliffe vs. evans, 18922. section 3(1)3. P.K. Oswal Hosiery Mills vs. Tilak chand, A.I.R.1969 Punjab 150, 159


6/16

6 | P a g e

such statement is to depreciate the value of the plaintiffs good. The law permits making of

statement, however false and malicious, whereby a trader claims his good to be better than

those of his rival traders but makes it actionable when there is false and malicious

depreciation of the quality of anothers goods.

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY:_

The objective of study is to find out that how does Malicious falsehood differs from

defamation and what are the different forms of this wrong. What are the remedies available

under the present legal system. To find out the cases related to this is also an objective of the

researcher.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:-

The researcher has primarily relied on the Doctrinal Method. The research is based on

comprehensive study of online journals, documents, Books and cases. Uniform citation

method has been used throughout the project report.

HYPOTHESIS:-Malicious falsehood are the type of the statement which are made intentionally to harm the

interest of another. It is different from deceit and defamation in certain ways.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:-

1.

How malicious falsehood is different from deceit and defamation.2. What are the different wrongs under this.3. Which points should be proved to bring an action for Malicious falsehood.4. What are the different remedies available for different wrongs.


7/16

7 | P a g e

CHAPTERISATION

1. Deals with slander of title or slander of goods.2. Deals with passing off goods.3. Imitation of the name of anothers business.4. Other forms of injurious falsehood.

SLANDER OF TITLE OR SLANDER OF GOODS

The phrase slander title was formerly used to refer to disparagement of a persons title to

real property,4but is now a days a generic name for the disparagement of property movable or

immovable, corporeal or incorporeal.5 The disparagement need not necessarily relate to title

but may be of any description, eg. A false statement that a persons house which he was

proposing to sell was haunted.6Slander of title is a false malicious statement about a persons

property or his business or relates to his material interest.7The phrase slander of goods is

used when the disparagement relates to goods. The disparagement may be depreciating the

quality or pointing out some other defects, eg. A false statement alleging As goods to be an

infringement to Bs trademark and warning As customers not to buy them. The leading case

of ractliffe vs. Evans is an instance of a false representation about business. The4 defendant

was held liable for publishing in his news paper a false statement that the plaintiff has ceased

to carry on his business and that his firm didnt then exist, and thereby causing loss of

customers to the plaintiff.

4Brook vs. Rawl (1849) 4 Ex 521

Ravenhill vs. upcott(1869) 20 LT 233Odgers, libel and slander, p. 705Malachy vs soper (1839) 2 Bing NC 371

Gutsole vs. mathers (1836) 1 M & 1 W 495

Evans vs. Harlow (1844) 5QB 624

Hatchard vs. Mege (1887) 18 QBD771

Dunlop pneumatic tyre co. vs maison tailbot (1904) 20 TR 579

British Railway traffic & electric co. vs. CRC co. (1922) 2 KB 260

6Barret vs. associated newspapers (1907) 23 TLR 666

Casey vs. Arnot (1876) 2 CPD 24Hargovind vs. Kikabhai (1938) ILR Nag 348, AIR 1938 Nag 847PKOH Mills vs. Tilakchand, AIR 1969 Punj 150


8/16

8 | P a g e

POINTS TO BE PROVED IN AN ACTION FOR SLANDER OF

TITLE OR SLANDER OF GOODS

The essential constituents in the action are damage8and Malice

9. The plaintiff

must prove the following points:

(a) Publication of a false statement

That the defendant published a false statement or representation. It is for the plaintiff to prove

the falsehood or untruth of the statement while in the case of a defamatory statement the law

presumes it to be false until the contrary is proved. The statement may be oral or written and

courts in England dont make any such distinction as between libel and slander.

(B) Disparagement

That the said publication disparaged the plaintiffs property or business. If iot disparaged also

his reputation directly or indirectly, m then an action for defamation also lies. The principle

applicable to the interpretation of alleged defamatory statement also apply here.10A person is

entitled to puff his own goods, eg. By saying that his goods are the best in the market or

even that they are superior to the plaintiffs. no action lies for such a statement because a

purchaser doesnt usually rely on them to the exclusion of his own judgment. Besides if an

action is allowed it would enable traders to to use it as a means of advertisement. In White vs.

Mellin,11the defendant, a chenist was not held liable for such kind of statement. However if

the defendant make any untrue statement of fact about plaintiff, then it is another matter.12

(C) DAMAGE

That the said publication caused special damage as a natural consequence, eg; the loss of

business, customers, a bargain, property, income or profits, or costs incurred by beingcompelled to defend his title.

8Malachy vs. soper (1836) 3 Bing NC 371

9 Peter vs. Baker (1847) 3 Bing NC 371

Halsey vs. brotherhood (1880) 15 Ch D 51410

Griffiths vs benn (1911) 27 TLR 346

Cundey vs. lerwill & pike (1908) 24 TLR 58411

(1895) AC 154Leetham vs. Rank (1912) 57 sol jour 11112

Young vs. macrae (1862) 3 B & S 264


9/16

9 | P a g e

(D) MALICE

That the statement was published maliciously,13ie. Out of some motive other than a bona fide

claim of right.14Absence of belief in the truth of the statement will be conclusive evidence of

malice, but a merely careless publication of its not by itself enough,

REMEDY FOR SLANDER OF TITLE OR SLANDER OF GOODS

The usual remedy is an action for damages or an injunction or both.15A declaration may in

particular cases be appropriate.16The measure of damages would be pecuniary equivalent of

the loss sustained as a natural consequence of the disparagement. The amount may also vary

according to aggravating or mitigating circumstances in the case. The relief by way of

injunction is a necessary and appropriate one for preventing future injury to business. In n

action for injunction the plaintiff need not prove that damages has actually been sustained,

but it is enough if he shows that damages must or will necessarily result.17

13Shapiro vs. Lal moita (1923) 40 TLR 203

14Wren vs. weild (1869) LR 4 QB 730

White vs. Mellin (1895) AC 154

Balden vs. Shorter (1933) CH 427

Tobacco co. vs. Bonnan AIR 1928 Cal 1

Steward vs. young (1870) LR 5 CP 12215

Hatchard vs. mege (1887) 18 QBD 77116

Lewis vs. Lewis (1895) 1 All ER 100517White vs mellin (1895) Ac 154

British Railway Traffic & electric co. vs CRC Co. (1922) 2 KB 260.


10/16

10 | P a g e

PASSING OFF GOODS

The action for passing off goods is the remedy for a false representation tending to deceive

purchaser into believing that the goods which the defendant is selling are really the

plaintiffs.18 the representation may be by a direct statement to that effect,19 or as is more

usually the case, by conduct or by way of using the distinctive mark, name number, design,

get up or appearance of anothers goods. In an action for passing off, the plaintiff need not

prove either an intent to deceive20 or actual damage.21 It is enough if he shows that the

conduct of the defendant was calculated or likely to deceive or mislead the public, ie, the

unwary or incautious and not the careful or intelligent purchaser.22On proof of this fact that

the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction, and even to nominal damages though deception and

damages have not actually resulted.23

Originally the common law courts insisted on proof of

fraud, but courts of equity intervened by granting injunctions even in case where the imitation

of a trademark was made in ignorance, provided such imitation was likely to deceive or

mislead public. The doctrine of the equity court was accepted as a part of the common law

after the amalgamation of the two sets of courts by the judicature act. While the English and

Indian acts allow actions for infringement of registered trademark, they dont preclude the

common law remedy for the actions of passing off goods.24

POINTS TO BE PROVED IN AN ACTION FOR PASSING OFF GOODS

The plaintiff must prove that his goods were known to the public by some distinctive name,

mark, get-up, appearance, or badge, and that the defendants, use or imitation of the name,

mark etc, was likely to mislead the public the public into believing that the defendants goods

were the plaintiffs. The defendants use or imitation can obviously have no such effect when

he uses the mark for a different class of goods from the plaintiffs. where the imitation is of

18Singer Machine manufacturers vs. Wilson (1876) 2 Ch D 343

19Ainsworth vs. Walmsley (1866) LR 1 Eq 518

20Gujarat G & M Co. vs. Swadeshi MillsCo., AIR 1939 Bom 118

21Blofeld vs. Payne *(1833) 4B & Ad 410

Draper vs. Trist (1939) 3 All ER 513 (CA)

22Singer mfg. co. vs. Loog (1882) 8 AC 15

Indian dental works vs. Dhanakoti AIR 1962 Mad 12723

Draper vs. trist (1939) 3 ALL ER 513 (CA)

Reddway vs. Bentham Hemp Spinninig co. (1892) 2 QB 639

Haji jamal & co. vs Abdul Kareem & co.(1933) ILR 57 Mad 600

Malayan tobacco distributors vs. The united king tobacco, AIR 1933 PC 13824Singer machine manufacturer vs. Wilson (1876) 2 Ch D 434

Warwick tyre co. vs. new motor and general rubber co. (1910) 1 Ch 248


11/16

11 | P a g e

some well known device, design, or get-up, chosen by plaintiff, it would ordinarily be

fraudulent and deceptive. Where the respondent began to market a drink called pub squash

with cans and advertising similar to those of appellants soft drink solo brought in the

market one year earlier, there was no cause of action as the cans and advertising has not

become distinguishing features of solo. The test is whether the product has derived from

advertising, a distinctive character which the market recognizes.25Where name and words are

chosen to refer to an article, the position is less simple. If the name and word is peculiar and

uncommon and arbitrarily chosen by the plaintiff for his goods, he can easily establish that

the imitation of it by another was fraudulent.26However it is a different matter if the words

are ordinary or descriptive. Every person has a right to use of the English or any other

language and one trader can not complain of the use of a name by another unless it has

acquired a distinctive application to the plaintiffs goods. For instance, it was held that the

word naptha w as descriptive of the article and could not be monopolized by one trader.27

A brewer who had been in the habit of putting on his bottles, a label with the words

nourishing stout could not restrain another brewer from using these words on his labels.28

However even a descriptive name may acquire a special and exclusive application to a

persons goods. In that case he has a right to restrain anothers use of it. In Reddaway vs.

Banham,29the words camel hair belting were held to have acquired a special application to

the plaintiffs goods of that description, and the defendant was restrained for using those

words for article. It is not merely exact but even a colourable imitation of a mark or name that

will be restrained if it has a tendency to mislead the public. A name which has a special and

secondary sense with reference to a persons goods may cease to have it and become one of

general application by being employed by others. If , however it is ambiguous whether a

name is a distinctive or general one , it is the duty of the person adopting it to take care that

he does not mislead. For instance, the name corona was used by the plaintiff for a long as a

distinctive of a brand of cigars. It was held that the name being ambiguous, the defendant

should be restrained from selling a cigar of any other brand as corona unless it was made

25Thomas bear & sons vs. prayag (1940) ILR ALL 446, AIR 1940 PC 86

26Ford vs, Foster (1872) LR 7 Ch 611

Upendra nath vs. The union Drug co. AIR 1926 cal 837

Unani Dawkhana Vs. Hamdard AIR 1930 Lah 99927

Fels vs hedley (1930) 20 TLR 69

Linoleum manufg. Co. vs Nairn (1878) 7 Ch D 834

Canadian shredded wheat co. ltd. Vs. Kellog co. of Canada ltd. 1938 PCC 14328

Rogger vs. Findlater (1873) LR 17 Eq 29Coca cola co. of Canada vs. pepsi-cola co. of Canada ltd. (1942) 1 ALL ER 615 (PC)29

(1896) AC 199


12/16

12 | P a g e

clear to the customers that it was not the corona brand. Whether the plaintiff has

established a reputation for the name, mark, etc. is so similar as to mislead purchasers would

depend on all the circumstances of the case. The plaintiffs were manufacturing cycle bells

under the trade mark B.K. which was seen by the public. If the defendants were allowed to

make cycle bells under the mark B.K-81 there was likelihood of diversion of trade from the

plaintiffs to the defendants. It was an injury against which the plaintiffs were entitled to

injunction. If an intent to defraud is shown, it would of course go a great way to prove

probability of deception. A manufacturers of goods as well as their importer or vendor can

acquire a right to an exclusive name, mark etc. 30a person who himself has pirated anothers

trademark can not complain of an infringement of it.31 The above principle applies to the

names, titles of books, periodical, newspapers etc. an author can restrain the publication in his

name of a book not written by him. Foreign trademarks and trade names are protected in

courts of this country by reason of an international convention for protection of industrial

property. In a Bombay case, the high court allowed an action filed by pujaris or priests of a

village temple for an injunction to prevent the defendants from installing an idol with the

same name in another temple. This action bears no analogy to a passing off action but could

be regarded as one for a disturbance of the plaintiffs enjoyment of their religious office and

its emoluments. On this ground, this case falls outside the principle of free competition

recognized in the old case of the Gloucesstor grammar schoolmaster.

Plaintiff popularized the trademark Annapurnafrom his product, atta from March 1995. In

fact, that trademark was being used by defendants for his products like salt etc, much prior to

the plaintiffs product came into market. Defendant started using that trademark for Atta also

subsequent to the plaintiffs production in the name of Annapurna. It was held that defendant

was entitled to use his trademark and the court refused to grant injunction in favour of the

plaintiff.32

30Imperial tobacco co. vs Bonnan (1924) ILR 51 cal 892 PC

Meera sahib vs. Abdul Aziz (1938) ILR Mad 46631The leather cloth co. vs. American leather cloth co. (1863) 4 De GJ & S 137

32M mahendra shaw vs.tiruchy floor mills, trichy 1997(2) ALD 251


13/16

13 | P a g e

IMITATION OF THE NAME OF ANOTHERS

BUSINESS

On principles similar to those of an action for passing off, an action will lie against a person

for imitation of the name of anothers business if it is likely to mislead the public.33When a

person uses his own name simpliciter for for his business, there can be no right of action

against him unless an intent to mislead is also present. If however, he uses an added or

abbreviated form of his name, he will be restrained on the proof of probability of deception.

The Indian companies act enacts that a company can not be registered in a name identical

with anothers or so closely resembling it as to calculated deceive. The national bank of India

got an injunction against a new bank started under the name of The National Bank of

Indore.34 If there is no chance of deception or confusion by the use of a name, the action for

passing off doesnt lie.

USE OF A NAME

A person has no right to sue when the use of his name or that of his property by another does

not injure his trade or business. An action to restrain the defendant from using a the name for

his villa similar to that of plaintiffs was dismissed, though such use might cause

inconvenience to the plaintiff.35Similarly a person

Who was using the word street london as his telegraphic address failed to get an injunction

to prevent a bank using the same words.36However an action will lie to restrain the use of

anothers name, real or assumed if it is a business name.37This assumes that the business is

similar. A radio artist giving programs

Under the fancy name uncle Mac could not get an injunction tto restrain a manufacturer

marketing a food product under the name uncle Macs puffed wheat. 38 The use of a

persons name by another may be defamatory as where the name of a doctor of repute is used

33Leather cloth co. vs. American leather cloth co. (1865) 11 HLC 523

34National Bank of india vs. National bank of Indore (1922) 24 Bom LR 1181

35Day vs. Brownrig (1878) 10 Ch D 294

36Street vs. Union bank of spain (1885) 30 Ch D 156

37Hinnes vs Winnick (1947) Ch 708

Servile vs. Constance (1954) 1 ALL ER 662Forbes vs. kemsley newspapers (1951) 2 TLR 65638

McCullock vs. Lewis May ltd. (1947) 2 ALL ER 845


14/16

14 | P a g e

without his authority to puff some quack medicine.39A person can not be prevented from use

of his name, unless some special manner of using it affects anothers bus iness.

REMEDY FOR PASSING OFFThe civil remedy is an action for passing off. Besides this, a criminal prosecution is also

available for the offence of using a false trademark or property mark,40but not if the person

using the mark had no intent to defraud.41

In the action for passing off, the plaintiff can ask for

(A) Damages(B) Injunction(C)Other appropriate relief like delivering up the counterfeited articles.

Damages represent the actual loss suffered by the plaintiff. He may elect between damages

and an account of the profits obtained by the defendant after commencement of the wrong.

However, neither damages nor profits are available against an innocent defendant who was

not aware of the plaintiff in the particular name or mark at the time of the infringement.

However, an injunction is available against him.

There can be no claim foe penal and exemplary damages. The plaintiff is not bound to wait

till the infringement of a trademark is repeated or till he gives warning and it is disregarded,because, the life of a trademark depends upon the promptitude with which it is vindicated.

The court has also power to grant other appropriate relief. if the defendant is found to have

spurious articles marked with the false mark in his possession, he can be ordered to remove

the marks or deliver up the articles.42

39Dockrell vs. Dougall (1899) 80 LT 556

40Section 478-489, IPC

Mohammd Raja vs. E, AIR 1930 Oudh 36041

Section 48-86, IPC42Slazenger vs. Fentham (1889) 6RPC 531

Upmann vs. Elkann (1871) LR 12 Eq 140


15/16

15 | P a g e

OTHER FORMS OF MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD

Apart from the above discussed forms of malicious falsehood, an action would lie for

intentionally causing damage to a person by making any false statement or representation to

another.43For instance3, in an early case,44damages were awarded for a false statement made

by the defendant to a person to whom the plaintiff was engaged to be married, that the

plaintiff was a married woman and his own wife, then as a result plaintiff lost the marriage.

In another case,45 the plaintiff recovered damages for loss of business due to the defendant

publishing a false statement that the plaintiffs wife who was assisting him in his shop was

guilty of adultery. Similarly, an action would lie for loss due to a false statement that one of

the assistant in the plaintiffs shop had a contagious disease. These statements though not

defamatory of the plaintiff are actionable under the category of malicious falsehood.

However, no action will lie if there is no malice. Where the plaintiff, a professional pianist,

sued the proprietors of a music hall for a certain week, whereby she lost engagements else

where, it was held that the defendants made a bona fide mistake and were not liable. 46

CONCLUSION:-

Malicious falsehoods are published statements which are false without necessarily being

defamatory.

In order to prove malicious falsehood, a claimant will need to prove that:

the words are false the words were published maliciously the words published have caused special damage or financial loss to the claimant.There is a difference between Defamation and Malicious Falsehood. The Motive is irrelevant

in the case of the defamation while it is not so in the case of the malicious falsehood. There isalso a difference Between Deceit and malicious falsehood. It is also known as injurious

falsehood. There are different forms of this wrong like slander of goods or slander of title,

Passing off goods, imitation of name of others etc.

43Ractliff vs. Evans (1892) 2 Qb 524

44Shephered vs. Wakeman (1661) 1 Sid 79

Dixon vs. Holden (1869) LR 7 Eq 48845Riding vs. Smith (1876) 1 Ex D 91

46Shapiro vs. La morta (1923) 40 TLR 201


16/16

16 | P a g e

BIBILIOGRAPHY:-

http://www.withyking.co.uk/uploads/news/857//defamation_&-malicious_falsehood.pdf

http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip_gb_pearsonhighhered/samplechapter/140825414X.pdf

www.thompsons.law.co.uk/factsheets/thompsons-defamation-factsheet.pdf http://www.agc.gov.my/akta/vol.%206/act%20286.pdf R K Bangia, Law Of Torts Ratan Lal Dheerajlal, Law Of Torts Rama Swami Iyer, Law of Torts
http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/factsheets/thompsons-defamation-factsheet.pdfhttp://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/factsheets/thompsons-defamation-factsheet.pdfhttp://www.agc.gov.my/akta/vol.%206/act%20286.pdfhttp://www.agc.gov.my/akta/vol.%206/act%20286.pdfhttp://www.agc.gov.my/akta/vol.%206/act%20286.pdfhttp://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/factsheets/thompsons-defamation-factsheet.pdf

malicious falsehood

Documents