CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PROJECT REPORT ON MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD

SUBMITTED TO:Mr. Harish Salve

SUBMITTED BY:Shashi kumar Roll no.-1047 BBA.LLB

1|Page

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 579 British 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

2|Page

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

3|Page

Dixon vs. Holden (1869) LR 7 Eq 488 Riding vs. Smith (1876) 1 Ex D 91 Shapiro vs. La morta (1923) 40 TLR 201

4|Page

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 to the 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 of any, 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 slander of 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.3 For example, a false assertion that the defendant has alien over the plaintiffs good or he has a better title to 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, 1892 2. section 3(1) 3. P.K. Oswal Hosiery Mills vs. Tilak chand, A.I.R.1969 Punjab 150, 159

5|Page

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.

6|Page

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.6 Slander of title is a false malicious statement about a persons property or his business or relates to his material interest.7 The 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.

Brook vs. Rawl (1849) 4 Ex 521 Ravenhill vs. upcott(1869) 20 LT 233 Odgers, libel and slander, p. 70 5 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 579 British Railway traffic & electric co. vs. CRC co. (1922) 2 KB 260
6

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 7 PKOH Mills vs. Tilakchand, AIR 1969 Punj 150

7|Page

POINTS TO BE PROVED IN AN ACTION FOR SLANDER OF TITLE OR SLANDER OF GOODS

The essential constituents in the action are damage8 and Malice9. 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. 10 A 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,11 the 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 being compelled to defend his title.

8 9

Malachy vs. soper (1836) 3 Bing NC 371 Peter vs. Baker (1847) 3 Bing NC 371 Halsey vs. brotherhood (1880) 15 Ch D 514 10 Griffiths vs benn (1911) 27 TLR 346 Cundey vs. lerwill & pike (1908) 24 TLR 584 11 (1895) AC 154 Leetham vs. Rank (1912) 57 sol jour 111 12 Young vs. macrae (1862) 3 B & S 264

8|Page

(D) MALICE
That the statement was published maliciously,13ie. Out of some motive other than a bona fide claim of right.14 Absence 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.15 A declaration may in particular cases be appropriate.16 The 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

13 14

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 15 Hatchard vs. mege (1887) 18 QBD 771 16 Lewis vs. Lewis (1895) 1 All ER 1005 17 White vs mellin (1895) Ac 154 British Railway Traffic & electric co. vs CRC Co. (1922) 2 KB 260.

9|Page

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.22 On 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

18 19

Singer Machine manufacturers vs. Wilson (1876) 2 Ch D 343 Ainsworth vs. Walmsley (1866) LR 1 Eq 518 20 Gujarat G & M Co. vs. Swadeshi MillsCo., AIR 1939 Bom 118 21 Blofeld vs. Payne *(1833) 4B & Ad 410 Draper vs. Trist (1939) 3 All ER 513 (CA)
22

Singer mfg. co. vs. Loog (1882) 8 AC 15 Indian dental works vs. Dhanakoti AIR 1962 Mad 127 23 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 24 Singer machine manufacturer vs. Wilson (1876) 2 Ch D 434 Warwick tyre co. vs. new motor and general rubber co. (1910) 1 Ch 248

10 | 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.25 Where 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.26 However 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,29 the 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

25 26

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 27 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 28 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) 29 (1896) AC 199

11 | 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.30 a 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 Annapurna from 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

30

Imperial tobacco co. vs Bonnan (1924) ILR 51 cal 892 PC Meera sahib vs. Abdul Aziz (1938) ILR Mad 466 31 The leather cloth co. vs. American leather cloth co. (1863) 4 De GJ & S 137 32 M mahendra shaw vs.tiruchy floor mills, trichy 1997(2) ALD 251

12 | 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.33 When 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.35 Similarly 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.36 However an action will lie to restrain the use of anothers name, real or assumed if it is a business name.37 This 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
33 34

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 35 Day vs. Brownrig (1878) 10 Ch D 294 36 Street vs. Union bank of spain (1885) 30 Ch D 156 37 Hinnes vs Winnick (1947) Ch 708 Servile vs. Constance (1954) 1 ALL ER 662 Forbes vs. kemsley newspapers (1951) 2 TLR 656 38 McCullock vs. Lewis May ltd. (1947) 2 ALL ER 845

13 | P a g e

without his authority to puff some quack medicine.39 A person can not be prevented from use of his name, unless some special manner of using it affects anothers business.

REMEDY FOR PASSING OFF

The 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, 40 but 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

39 40

Dockrell vs. Dougall (1899) 80 LT 556 Section 478-489, IPC Mohammd Raja vs. E, AIR 1930 Oudh 360 41 Section 48-86, IPC 42 Slazenger vs. Fentham (1889) 6RPC 531 Upmann vs. Elkann (1871) LR 12 Eq 140

14 | 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.43 For instance3, in an early case,44 damages 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 is also 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.

43 44

Ractliff vs. Evans (1892) 2 Qb 524 Shephered vs. Wakeman (1661) 1 Sid 79 Dixon vs. Holden (1869) LR 7 Eq 488 45 Riding vs. Smith (1876) 1 Ex D 91 46 Shapiro vs. La morta (1923) 40 TLR 201

15 | 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/samplechapt er/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

16 | P a g e