Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-04-06|Before: de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Mackenzie JSeparate reasons for judgment, of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Mackenzie JSeparate reasons for judgment, of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
Catchwords
DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING –
QUEENSLAND – appellant sues respondents for defamation –
appeal
against unsuccessful application to strike out whole or parts of amended defence
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING –QUEENSLAND – appellant sues respondents for defamation –appealagainst unsuccessful application to strike out whole or parts of amended defence– where respondents advanced alternativesto appellant’sparticularised defamatory meanings, whether these alternative meanings weregenuine, offered truly in denialof the appellant’sDEFAMATION– OTHER DEFENCES – MISCELLANEOUS DEFENCES – whetherrespondents able to invoke a Polly Peck defence to rely on their pleadedalternative meanings – whether Polly Peck approach open inQueensland – availability in light of imputation-focussed Queenslanddefamation law and Queensland civil procedureDEFAMATION – ACTIONSFOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND – whether defenceexcessively repetitious andprolix – whether this would prejudice fairtrial of the proceedingDEFAMATION – 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
convictionsCriminal Code (Qld) s 22(1)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 171Bellino v Australian Broadcasting
Corporation [1996] HCA 47
(1996) 185 CLR 183, consideredBremridge v Latimer
(1864) 12 WR 878, referred toChakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd
(1998) 193 CLR 519, consideredDavid Syme & Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy
[2000] VSCA 24, consideredEvans v Davies [1991] 2 QdR 498,
consideredKhashoggi v IPC Magazines Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 1412, referred
toMann v Mackay Television Ltd [1992] 2 QdR 136,
consideredPervan v North Queensland Newspaper Company Ltd [1993] HCA 64
(1993) 178
CLR 309, consideredPolly Peck (Holdings) PLC v Trelford [1986] QB
1000, distinguishedRyan v Ross [1916] ArgusLawRp 66
(1916) 22 CLR 1,
distinguishedSlim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB 157, referred
toSpeidel v Plato Films Ltd [1961] AC 1090, referred to Templeton
v Jones [1984] NZCA 14
[1984] 1 NZLR 448, referred toWatkin v Hall (1868) LR 3
QB 396, referred to
Judgment (22 paragraphs)
[1]
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
[2]
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
[3]
DEFAMATION - ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION - PLEADING - QUEENSLAND - whether defence excessively repetitious and prolix - whether this would prejudice fair trial of the proceeding
[4]
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