Joyce v Sengupta [1993] 1 All ER 897

Whilst it was untrue, the first statement is one which would not be taken seriously. In Lyne v Nicholls (1906), it was held that the plaintiff must show that there is something which links the two elements. In this statement, what Kevin actually implies about other telephones is true. Whilst there is a false statement, it is about Kevin’s goods and not those of the other parties. In an action for malicious falsehood, it is necessary that the defendant must make some false statement concerning the plaintiff’s goods (White v Mellin (1895)), although statements may be express or implied.