Malice Definition

Case studies

"In some areas of research there were also significant time savings. You get to what you are looking for more quickly, which all goes to the value of the product."

Harper Mcleod

Access all documents on Malice

GET ACCESS NOW

GLOSSARY

What does Malice mean?

Malice is not to be understood in terms of “wickedness” but in terms of intention to cause harm or at least actual foresight that harm may result.

“Maliciously” is an element of various offences in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and where it is concerned with doing an act it means intending to cause the relevant harm or at least foreseeing the risk of causing that harm.

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Transferred mens rea

The principle of transferred malice/transferred mens reaThe Supreme Court has stated that a better description for transferred malice might be ‘transferred mens rea’. The term ‘transferred malice’ has been described as ‘a misleading label’.This article will refer to the principle as ‘transferred mens rea’. This principle becomes relevant where a criminal intention leads to an unintended outcome or harm. It may apply provided that the outcome or harm is the same kind as intended, even if the actual victim is not the same as the intended victim.Latimer exemplifies the basic principle. D tried to assault V with his belt. He missed V and accidentally hit V2. D was found guilty of assault despite not having intended to hit V2. This reasoning was later applied in Mitchell, in which D assaulted V causing him to fall on V2. V2 was elderly and suffered a broken bone that led to her death in hospital. D was convicted of manslaughter despite having had no intention to assault V2. The court held that it...

Key risk areas—fraud—law firms

Key risk areas—fraud—law firms Government guidance setting out expectations regarding procedures that commercial organisations can put in place to prevent persons associated with them from committing fraud offences is formulated around six guiding principles. These principles, particularly the second—’Risk assessment’—make it clear that you should adopt a risk-based approach to managing fraud risks. The failure to prevent fraud offence is one angle of fraud risk management, where the risk is that someone who is associated with your business commits a fraud offence which benefits the business or your clients. You also need to consider fraud risk where your business is the intended victim of fraud. The good news here is that the procedures you put in place to cover each angle of risk are likely to be the same or very similar. Fraud risk management procedures should be proportionate to the fraud risks you face, so you will need to first identify those risks. You should therefore perform a risk assessment across your business as a critical initial step—Practice Note:...

Discover our 25 Practice Notes on Malice

Reply (defamation)

Reply (defamation) Claim No.:HQ [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING’S BENCH DIVISION ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST PARTIES: (1) [Insert full name of claimant/first claimant] (2) [[Insert full name of second claimant]] [Claimant OR Claimants] and [Insert full name of defendant] Defendant _____________________________________ REPLY _____________________________________ 1 The [Claimant joins OR Claimants join] issue with the Defendant on his Defence save for the admissions it contains and those averments therein which are expressly admitted below. Paragraph references are to the Defence. 2 The [Claimant denies OR Claimants deny OR that the words complained of in the meanings set out at paragraph 8.1 of the Defence are true. Without limitation to the generality of this denial as to the particulars of truth advanced to support those imputations, the [Claimant pleads OR Claimants plead] as follows: 2.1 [set out the claimant’s/claimants’ response to the Particulars of Truth set out by the defendant in his defence, admitting or denying as appropriate]. 3 It...

Fraud risk assessment

Fraud risk assessment 1 Introduction 1.1 We have conducted an organisation-wide assessment of fraud, covering: 1.1.1 the risk of failing to prevent fraud being committed on our behalf; and 1.1.2 the risk of our organisation itself falling victim to fraud. 1.2 This document records the risks we have assessed, the conclusions reached, and details of action points we consider necessary as a result of this assessment. 2 Overview of the organisation Size and nature of the organisation [Insert details] Staff [Insert details, eg composition of staff base, staff turnover and any other relevant employee metrics] We are [not ]a large organisation for the purposes of section 199(1) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023) [Insert details] [Our parent company [(including its subsidiaries) ]is [not ]a large organisation for the purposes of section 199(1) of ECCTA 2023] [Insert details] Description of work or practice areas and their relative size and significance to the business [Insert details] Customer types [Insert...

Dive into our 3 Precedents related to Malice

If documents have already been disclosed to a claimant employee as part of a tribunal claim (in accordance with the respondent employer's duty of disclosure), and the employee then makes a data subject access request for the same documents, is the employer required to disclose the documents again?

If documents have already been disclosed to a claimant employee as part of a tribunal claim (in accordance with the respondent employer's duty of disclosure), and the employee then makes a data subject access request for the same documents, is the employer required to disclose the documents again? The right of access under Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018), known as 'subject access', is a right for individuals to obtain a copy of personal data held on them. It applies to data controllers and gives the right to obtain: • confirmation that their personal data is being processed • access to their data, and • additional supplementary information (which largely corresponds to the information that should be provided in a privacy notice) Personal data is data that relates to a living person who is identifiable, directly or indirectly, from that information (Article 4(1) of Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK GDPR and section...

Refusing a data subject request—what is ‘manifestly unfounded or excessive’?

Refusing a data subject request—what is ‘manifestly unfounded or excessive’? The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides for enhanced rights for data subjects, including providing rights of access, rectification, erasure and restriction of processing, data portability, a right to object to processing and a right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, with strict time limits for complying. Where a data subject request is manifestly unfounded or excessive, in particular because of its repetitive character, you can either: • charge a reasonable fee taking into account the administrative costs of providing the information or communication or taking the action requested—see Precedent: Response to data subject request—all rights—charging a fee or extension of time to respond • refuse to act on the request Each request must be considered individually on a case-by-case basis. You bear the burden of demonstrating the request is manifestly unfounded or excessive. In order to do so, you should keep a record of your reasoning. Where...

See the 3 Q&As about Malice

IP weekly highlights—1 May 2025

This week's edition of IP weekly highlights includes: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content from the world of IP. These highlights focus on the key rights of copyright and associated rights, database rights, trade marks and passing off, designs, and patents, as well as covering issues relating to confidential information, know-how R&D and IP disputes all mainly from a UK and European perspective.

Absence of sufficient harm or damage causes defamation and malicious falsehood claims to fail (George v Cannell)

TMT analysis: The court held that the claimant, Fiona George was the subject of false allegations of fact made maliciously by her former boss, Lynn Cannell, to two third parties. However, despite this, her claims were dismissed because they were found not to be serious enough. In particular, the libel and slander claims failed on the basis that neither publication found to have been made had caused or were likely to cause serious harm to Ms George’s reputation within section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013). The malicious falsehood claim failed on a similar basis; the court did not consider that Ms George had suffered the necessary special damage (or damage within section 3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 (DA 1952)) to found the claim. The judgment includes a number of useful findings for practitioners to consider, including interesting commentary in relation to the scope of the ‘serious harm’ test in defamation claims, the evidence that formed the basis of a rare finding of malice made against a...

Read the latest 4 News articles on Malice

Top

Trial

��ɫ��

GLOSSARY