Clark and Lindsell on Torts
, 21st edition at 23-10). It seems to me that this is a weak claim and the defendants have difficulties proving all three of the elements of the tort (by which I mean false words; maliciously published; and calculated to cause and do cause the claimant pecuniary loss). a.So far as the words are concerned, I have held that there is at worst an ambiguity. b.So far as malice is concerned, it seems to me that the defendants have no case at all. I have had a full explanation, which has not been disputed, as to how the words came to be said. It seems to me that the case on malice does not get off the starting blocks. c.So far as damage is concerned, one might have thought it was a slightly easier task for the Defendants. However, even assuming there is a loss of sales, it is not clear whether that would be due to the press release, or the mere possibility of an appeal (as appears to have been something which occurred to Mr Yardley). Alternatively any loss of sales may simply be the uninformed speculation by third parties, having nothing to do with the claimants’ press release. There may also be other reasons for lost sales. 34.Next, when I turn to the relief sought, para 1a seeks an order that the notice set out in schedule one be printed, essentially, on the defendants’ websites, namely