Article summary

TMT analysis: This decision regarding an application to amend particulars of claim alleging malicious falsehood deals with three matters of interest concerning the proper pleading of a claim in malicious falsehood. First, the court held that, on the facts of this case, it was not essential for the claimants to plead that the relevant statement had been understood in the sense complained of as false by some identified publishee(s). Secondly, in circumstances where the alleged falsehoods were expressed in general terms, it was not incumbent upon the claimants to plead falsity with any greater particularity. Thirdly, the court rejected the submission that statements of opinion cannot be complained of as a falsehood for a claim in malicious falsehood. Where a statement of opinion is capable of being proved true it is, in principle, capable of founding an action for malicious falsehood. Written by Tim James-Matthews, barrister, at Matrix Chambers. Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.