Cases

Marathon Mutual Ltd & Anor v Waters & Anor

Held

(1) C1's amended pleaded cases was gravely deficient in form and substance. It had to set out its case separately in respect of each cause of action; plead proper particulars of falsity and malice and special damage if relied upon.

(2) Provided it also amended its case, C2 could maintain a claim in malicious falsehood. The Ds were correct that the modern law of malicious falsehood requires there be some reference, direct or indirect, in the words complained of to the claimant or to its business, property or other economic interest but it was not necessary to go further and establish identification of the claimant in the minds of the publishees. Here there was an arguable case that C2's business was referred to.

Also