George v Cannell & Anor [2024] UKSC 19 (12 June 2024)
Citation: George v Cannell & Anor [2024] UKSC 19 (12 June 2024)
Rule of thumb: If you leave malicious reviews (reviews which are known to be lies) about a person on the internet, can the person sue you for stress & inconvenience? Yes, this is malicious falsehood and damages for stress & inconvenience can be sued for.
Background facts: This case invoked the subjects of defamation & remedies.
The basic facts were that an employee fell out with their former employer – the former employer was disgruntled at the former employee leaving to start their own business & taking clients with them. The former employer left malicious reviews on the former employee. This did not cause the former employee any loss of income, but caused stress & inconvenience over the mistruths and the worry that it might damage reputation.
Court held: The Court that this was malicious falsehood. The Court further clarified the law that this is an area where damages for purely stress & inconvenience can be claimed even if it does not cause income loss.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘(5) Conclusion on mental distress damages: In summary, it is our view that damages for proved mental distress/injured feelings can be and, unless ruled out on normal grounds such as remoteness, mitigation etc, should be awarded for malicious falsehood whether at common law or under section 3(1) (but, although we have heard no argument on this, not for loss of reputation as a non-pecuniary loss). In this case, this means that mental distress damages can be recovered by the claimant for, for example, upset and anxiety caused by the malicious falsehood that is actionable per se under section 3(1). As ordered by the Court of Appeal, the case should therefore be remitted to the trial judge for the assessment of such damages on the facts.
On this issue we therefore disagree with the judgment of the majority. Our reasons for doing so are set out above. The majority conclude that mental distress damages cannot be awarded because "financial damage is an essential element of the tort" (para 109). In our view that is inconsistent with the majority's acceptance (at paras 51-56) that once the requirements of section 3(1) are made out the tort is actionable per se. If so, that means that the tort of malicious falsehood can be established (and, indeed, has been established in this case) without proof of pecuniary loss - ie it is not an essential element of the tort. It also follows that, contrary to what is said in the majority's judgment at the end of para 109, our approach is consistent with the premise, shared with the majority, that non-pecuniary loss caused by a tort is recoverable subject to normal rules restricting or denying damages such as remoteness and mitigation.
8. Overall conclusion: The proper interpretation of section 3(1) of the 1952 Act is that, in the circumstances specified, the tort of malicious falsehood is actionable per se. Section 3(1) imposes a forward-looking test that requires the objective likelihood of the words used causing pecuniary loss to be judged at the time of publication by reference to all causally relevant facts and matters which are, or should reasonably have been, known to the publisher. Mental distress damages can be awarded for the tort of malicious falsehood under section 3(1) even though the claimant has suffered no pecuniary loss’.
Lord Leggatt at 237-239
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.