Damages for Injured Feelings Resulting from Malicious Falsehood Comparative Study in English, Iraqi, and Islamic Law

Abstract

The English law of Tort has always had distrust for claims based upon injured feeling resulting from malicious falsehood, so it has required that the plaintiff have to suffer financial loss as a condition for damages for malicious falsehood. In 2024, in George v. Cannell, the Supreme Court ruled by a majority (three to two) that the section (3) of Defamation 1953 does not change the general rule in this regard. Islamic law preceded English law in requiring financial loss as a condition for compensation for moral damages. According to the majority of Muslim jurists, Islamic law does not provide compensation for all forms of moral damage not accompanied by financial loss. Unlike English and Islamic law, Iraqi civil law grants compensation for moral damages without requiring that such damage be accompanied by financial loss. In fact, there is no justification for this expansion in the granting of compensation for moral damages in Iraqi law.