Hussein v Farooq & Anor

In a slander claim, the claimant must prove the actual words spoken with reasonable clarity. The court must then determine whether those words were defamatory and whether they were actionable without proof of special damage. Where reliance is placed on words tending to injure reputation in a calling, trade or profession, the claimant bears the burden of proving that the relevant business was being carried on at the date of publication. Special damages require proof of the loss and a causal link between the words and that loss. An alleged endorsement of another person’s defamatory words may create liability only if the endorsement is established unequivocally.

The claimant brought a slander action against two defendants arising from an alleged conversation at the first defendant’s showroom in April 2006. He alleged that the first defendant made, or endorsed, statements that he could not obtain business property and that the second defendant accused him of dishonesty, false invoicing and falsely demanding payment.

The contractual dispute originally joined to the slander claim had been separated and was not in issue. The court therefore considered whether either defendant had spoken or endorsed the pleaded words, whether the words were defamatory and actionable without proof of special damage, and whether the claimant had proved the special damages claimed.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that either defendant spoke the words attributed to him. The evidence was conflicting, the claimant’s case shifted materially, and the principal witness’s statement did not correspond reliably with the pleaded words.
2. The essence of slander is the actual words spoken. Those words must be proved with reasonable clarity. The first defendant’s alleged statement that the claimant could not obtain property was not defamatory on its face, and no innuendo was pleaded.
3. An unequivocal endorsement of defamatory words spoken by another person could, in principle, fix the endorser with responsibility. That allegation was not proved: the witness relied upon by the claimant did not mention any nodding, and the claimant’s own evidence was a late and unnotified addition that was not reliable.
4. The claimant also failed to establish that any words were actionable without proof of special damage. The relevant exception required proof that the words tended to injure him in a calling, trade or profession carried on at the time of publication. He produced insufficient evidence of the nature and continuation of such a business in April 2006.
5. The claim for special damages was unsupported by adequate evidence of the proposed transactions, commission arrangements, causation or loss. No relevant person gave evidence that business was withdrawn because of the alleged slanders, and the documentary evidence was insufficient.