The claimant alleged malicious falsehood against the defendant, which had advertised a campaign to remove ‘nasties’ from the food it sold, including a component, aspartame, supplied by the claimant. They pointed to its approval by many authorities, and said that the defendant believed its assertion false since it continued to sell products including the product.
Judges:
Sir Charles Gray
Citations:
[2009] FSR 16, [2009] EWHC 781 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Quinton v Peirce and Another QBD 30-Apr-2009
One election candidate said that another had defamed him in an election leaflet. Additional claims were made in injurious falsehood and under the Data Protection Act.
Held: The claim in defamation failed. There were no special privileges in . .
See Also – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd QBD 15-Jul-2009
The claimant said that the defendant’s characterisation of its own products as ‘Good for You’ by reference to a description saying that it did not include the claimant’s product as a component, was a malicious falsehood. The defendant sold other . .
See Also – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd CA 2-Jun-2010
The claimant sold a sweetener ingredient. The defendant shop advertised its own health foods range with the label ‘no hidden nasties’ and in a situation which, the claimant said, suggested that its ingredient was a ‘nasty’, and it claimed under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Torts – Other
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341874