Robinson v Laws & Anor [2001] QCA 122

DEFAMATION - ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION - PLEADING - QUEENSLAND - appellant sues respondents for defamation - appeal against unsuccessful application to strike out whole or parts of amended defence - where respondents advanced alternatives to appellant's particularised defamatory meanings, whether these alternative meanings were genuine, offered truly in denial of the appellant's

DEFAMATION - OTHER DEFENCES - MISCELLANEOUS DEFENCES - whether respondents able to invoke a Polly Peck defence to rely on their pleaded alternative meanings - whether Polly Peck approach open in Queensland - availability in light of imputation-focussed Queensland defamation law and Queensland civil procedure

DEFAMATION - ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION - PLEADING - QUEENSLAND - whether defence excessively repetitious and prolix - whether this would prejudice fair trial of the proceeding

DEFAMATION - ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION - PLEADING - QUEENSLAND - where amended defence disclosed details of convictions of which the "rehabilitation period" under Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act had expired - whether disclosure permissible where appellant "wished" to disclose the convictions

Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld), s 3(2), s 5(1), s 5(2), s 6, s 8, s 12(1)

Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), s 4, s 6, s 8, s 15, s 16(1)(h)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5(1), r 149(1)(a), r 157, r 166(4), r 171

Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1996] HCA 47; (1996) 185 CLR 183, considered

Bremridge v Latimer (1864) 12 WR 878, referred to

Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519, considered

David Syme & Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy [2000] VSCA 24, considered

Evans v Davies [1991] 2 QdR 498, considered

Khashoggi v IPC Magazines Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 1412, referred to

Mann v Mackay Television Ltd [1992] 2 QdR 136, considered

Pervan v North Queensland Newspaper Company Ltd [1993] HCA 64; (1993) 178 CLR 309, considered

Polly Peck (Holdings) PLC v Trelford [1986] QB 1000, distinguished

Ryan v Ross [1916] ArgusLawRp 66; (1916) 22 CLR 1, distinguished

Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB 157, referred to

Speidel v Plato Films Ltd [1961] AC 1090, referred to Templeton v Jones [1984] NZCA 14; [1984] 1 NZLR 448, referred to

Watkin v Hall (1868) LR 3 QB 396, referred to

RA Mulholland QC with DK Boddice for the respondents

Thynne & Macartney (Brisbane) acting as Town Agents for Ross Finlayson & Associates (Dalby) for the appellant