Malicious Falsehood – The Correct Interpretation of s3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952
In George v Cannell and another [2022], the Court of Appeal has ruled on what a claimant needs to prove to be able to rely on section 3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952, which provides an exception from the need to prove special damages in a malicious falsehood action. The court also considered whether a claimant could recover anything more than nominal damages for injury to feelings, in the absence of actual financial loss. Background An action for malicious falsehood takes pla
![Soriano v Forensic News LLC & ors [2021]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/003c20_6657842b9764460dbc1dc14afe2b77fe~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_38,h_25,fp_0.50_0.50,q_90,enc_auto/003c20_6657842b9764460dbc1dc14afe2b77fe~mv2.jpg)
![ZXC v Bloomberg [2022] – The Supreme Court delivers another blow to the British media](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/003c20_61ca34e9d65448b7ad6338ba1b512a70~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_38,h_28,fp_0.50_0.50,q_95,enc_auto/003c20_61ca34e9d65448b7ad6338ba1b512a70~mv2.png)
![Blake, Seymour & Thorp v Fox [2021]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/003c20_288aede1956d456da7fe750492b86688~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_38,h_29,fp_0.50_0.50,q_95,enc_auto/003c20_288aede1956d456da7fe750492b86688~mv2.png)
![Abramovich v (1) HarperCollins Publishers Limited (2) Catherine Belton [2021]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/003c20_5840605aa29f4ff9aa2f6b4b3bf36e28~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_38,h_29,fp_0.50_0.50,q_95,enc_auto/003c20_5840605aa29f4ff9aa2f6b4b3bf36e28~mv2.png)
![Lloyd v Google [2021] - Good News for Data Controllers](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/003c20_8c65cbc080af4cddbd5be31ec2c946e1~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_38,h_25,fp_0.50_0.50,q_95,enc_auto/003c20_8c65cbc080af4cddbd5be31ec2c946e1~mv2.png)
