Malice Sample Clauses
The Malice clause defines the concept of intentional wrongdoing or harmful intent within the context of the agreement. It typically clarifies that actions taken with malice—such as deliberately causing harm, acting with ill will, or knowingly violating the terms—may result in specific legal consequences, such as loss of indemnification or increased liability. By explicitly addressing malice, this clause helps distinguish between accidental breaches and those committed with wrongful intent, ensuring that parties are held appropriately accountable for intentional misconduct.
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 1 times
Malice. Counsel for the Defendant has, in his submissions, pointed out that the Claimant has not pleaded malice and that such must be strictly pleaded and proven. Indeed, Part 69.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules does state that the claimant must state that the words were published maliciously. It is my view that such a submission is misconceived because, as ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ said in Jameel, where ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ applies, it is no longer necessary to carry out the “two-step” examination of “duty and interest” and “absence of malice”. The concept of malice is now to be considered in the context of whether the article represents “responsible journalism”. As he said at paragraph 46: “If the publication is in the public interest, the duty and interest are taken to exist. The ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ defence is very different from the privilege discussed by the Court of Appeal in Blackshaw v Lord [1984] QB 1, where it was contemplated that in exceptional circumstances there could be a privileged occasion in the classic sense, arising out of a duty to communicate information to the public generally and a corresponding interest in receiving it. The Court of Appeal there contemplated a traditional privilege, liable to be defeated only by proof of malice. But the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ defence does not employ this two-stage process. It is not as narrow as traditional privilege nor is there a burden upon the claimant to show malice to defeat it.”