## Facts

- Ratcliffe operated an engineering and boiler-making business under the name “Ratcliffe and Sons,” continuing the business after his father’s death.
- Evans caused a county newspaper to publish a notice stating, in substance, that “Ratcliffe and Sons” had ceased to exist or was no longer operating after the father’s death.
- The statement was false because Ratcliffe continued operating the business.
- A jury found the publication was false, malicious, and purposely made to injure Ratcliffe’s business.
- Ratcliffe proved a general loss of business (a decline in customers/orders) following the publication.
- Ratcliffe did not identify specific customers or particular contracts lost.

## Issues

1. In an action for injurious (malicious) falsehood disparaging a trader’s business, whether the plaintiff must prove specific lost customers or contracts as “special damage.”
2. Whether evidence of a general decline in trade, causally linked to a maliciously false publication, is sufficient pecuniary loss to sustain liability and damages.

## Decision

- The court dismissed Evans’s appeal and affirmed judgment for Ratcliffe.
- The court held that a maliciously published false statement about a trader’s business is actionable upon proof of real pecuniary loss.
- Proof of a general decline in business attributable to the publication can satisfy the damage requirement, even without proof of specific lost customers or contracts.

## Legal Principles

- Injurious (malicious) falsehood consists of a false statement published to third parties about a claimant’s business, goods, or property, made maliciously, that causes pecuniary loss.
- The claimant must show falsity, publication, malice (improper motive or absence of lawful justification), and pecuniary loss traditionally described as “special damage.”
- “Special damage” is not confined to itemized, individually identified lost transactions; a proved, measurable general loss of trade may qualify when shown to be the direct and natural result of the publication.
- Causation may be established circumstantially where the statement is calculated to deter customers and a downturn in business follows.

## Conclusion

The court upheld recovery for injurious falsehood where a newspaper falsely announced a trader’s business had ceased and the trader proved a causally connected general decline in trade; the plaintiff was not required to identify particular lost customers or contracts to satisfy the damage requirement.


Ratcliffe v. Evans, [1892] 2 Q.B. 524 (C.A. 1892)