“…ough there was “no evidence” of pecuniary damage in this country nor any to show that the chances of production in the USA had been harmed. In Joyce v Sengupta [1993] 1 WLR 337 (CA), Sir Donald Nicholls VC summarised the position thus: “… if a plaintiff establishes that the defendant maliciously made a false statement … in respect of …”
“…me detail and expressed the view that such damages should in principle be available in all such claims, whether based on the common law or s 3 of the 1952 Act: [1993] 1 WLR 337, 347-348, 349, 351H. The issue came up again seven years later in Khodaparast v Shad [2000] 1 WLR 618. The claim was based on s 3. The trial judge was satisfie…”
“…s when he cannot prove actual loss. That right is not cut down by later events. Nor would the award necessarily be limited to nominal damages: Joyce v Sengupta [1993] 1 WLR 337 per Sir Donald Nicholls V-C at 347. However, he accepted that the likely scale of an award might be relevant to a Jameel analysis.…”