KB-2023-000257 - [2024] EWHC 647 (KB)

Mr Vassall-Adams submits that the claimant must, but cannot, establish the falsity of the statements. For the purposes of the tort of malicious falsehood, the single meaning rule does not apply. What matters is the subjective understanding of the individual publishes: Peck v Williams Trade Supplies Ltd [2020] EWHC 966, at [13]. There is no evidence of this subjective intention. In any event, the claim fails because there is no real prospect of proving malice, which has the same meaning as in the tort of defamation. There are also no pleaded facts on which it can be said that damage flowed from the falsity of the statements.