To successfully bring a claim for maliicous falsehood in the UK, one has to show that one has suffered "special damages", which are actual damages suffered as a direct consequence of a malicious, false statement.
However, one does not have to do this if s3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 applies. This is below:
In an action for slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove special damage—
(a) if the words upon which the action is founded are calculated to cause pecuniary damage to the plaintiff and are published in writing or other permanent form; or
(b) if the said words are calculated to cause pecuniary damage to the plaintiff in respect of any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication.
But surely this section of the Act would always apply. The loss suffered as a result of a statement is always going to be economic (e.g., lost investment, sales, etc.) and the statement being malicious means that it was intended to cause damage when it was made.
Thus, whis this section of the Act considered to be an exception to the general rule, when in fact it would seem to apply in all cases?