Sinanis, N; (2015) Refusing defeat: a final call for the revival of the polly peck defence. Media and Arts Law Review , 20 (3)

Preview

Text Refusing Defeat A Final Call for the Revival of the Polly Peck Defence.pdf - Accepted Version Download (237kB) | Preview

Abstract

Australia is an interesting enclave of defamation jurisprudence. It is particularly interesting in respect of the so-called ‘Polly Peck’ defence. It can be traced to two landmark English decisions: Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers1 and Polly Peck (Holdings) v Trelford.2 Broadly speaking, ‘Polly Peck’ defends a defamation claim by relying on defamatory meaning that differs from the meaning pleaded by the plaintiff. Australian appellate judges have been quite skeptical about it. Following some critical obiter dicta in Chakravarti v Adelaide Newspapers Ltd,3 the defence has been substantially modified. In 2000, the Victorian Court of Appeal replaced it with the more confined ‘Hore-Lacy’ approach.4 This article argues for the full restoration of the Polly Peck methodology. In particular, it argues for Australian courts to once again recognise the now critically endangered ‘common sting’ plea. It does so by reviving the antipodean debate around the permissibility of alternative meaning pleas. Our fixations on the plaintiff’s pleaded imputations, as well as our fears of ‘roving inquiry’ have not been good reasons for abandoning Polly Peck.

Download activity - last month

Export as JSONXMLCSV

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item