Cases

Crossland v Wilkinson Hardware Stores Ltd

Comment

This is the latest in a growing line of cases in which the judges of the jury list have struck out/dismissed defamation or malicious falsehood claims on the basis of the hopelessness of the malice claims, underlining the need for claimants to put forward only properly constructed malice pleas that are based on evidence. Despite the fact that there was no application to strike out the Claimant's meanings as being unsustainable, the judge found that the Claimant had based his malice plea upon an exaggerated interpretation of the words complained of (paras 15 to 19, 3, 54) and that if the words were taken "to say what they mean" it was impossible to infer malice, highlighting the relationship between malice and meaning. One needs to look at the meaning objectively when assessing the viability of a malice claim. The case is also noteworthy for the approach to Part 24 applications where the Claimant has not applied for a direction for trial by jury.

Areas of work

Defamation
Harassment
Malicious Falsehood

Also