UCL Discovery
UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery

Refusing defeat: a final call for the revival of the polly peck defence

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

[thumbnail of Refusing Defeat A Final Call for the Revival of the Polly Peck Defence.pdf]
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.

Type: Article
Title: Refusing defeat: a final call for the revival of the polly peck defence
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
Publisher version: https://law.unimelb.edu.au/centres/cmcl/research/p...
Language: English
Additional information: This version is the version of record. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions.
UCL classification: UCL
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of Laws
URI: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10059368
Downloads since deposit
422Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item