Injurious Falsehood
Drummond-Jackson v. British Medical Association 1970
An article in a journal charged the plaintiff with having practised a dangerous dental technique.
This was held libellous.
It also damaged the man's reputation.
B published in a newspaper a false statement to the effect that A had ceased to carry on business, and naturally A's business declined.
Though this statement was clearly no libel (no one thinks the worse of a man for shutting up shop), there being evidence of malice, it was held to be actionable as injurious falsehood.
The statement, made maliciously, damaged the man's economic interest.
Injurious falsehood is committed when a person damages another by false statements in respects other than reputation.