Alternative to defamation

Ajinomoto Sweetners Europe SAS v Asbestos Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 609, [2010] All ER (D) 03 (Jun); NLJ 11 June p842

The claimant was one of the world’s major producers and suppliers of the sugar substitute aspartame. Some of the defendant’s own brand of health foods contained a message reading ‘no artificial colours or flavours and no aspartame’. The claimant brought proceedings for malicious falsehood. The judge found that two possible meanings would be derived by consumers: (i) that there was a risk that aspartame is harmful or unhealthy as alleged by the claimant; and (ii) that the foods were for customers who found aspartame objectionable, as the defendant averred the words meant. The judge then applied the ‘single meaning rule’ which he took to require that ‘the court should not select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available’. He therefore took the single meaning to be that advanced by the defendant. The claimant appealed contending that the single meaning rule did not apply to malicious falsehood.