Benhayon v Rockett

In this case, the plaintiff, Mr Benhayon, brought a defamation claim against the defendant, Mr Rockett, over a series of statements made on social media. Mr Benhayon alleged that Mr Rockett made defamatory statements about him, which had caused him reputational harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the defence of contextual truth could be applied in this case. Mr Rockett argued that the statements made were true in a contextual sense, and therefore should not be considered defamatory. The court had to determine if the statements in question could reasonably be understood in a way that would make them true, and if so, whether this defence could be applied.

The court held that the defence of contextual truth could apply if the statements were capable of being understood in a way that made them true. The court noted that the same caution must be exercised in determining whether the defendant’s statements could convey the alleged defamatory meaning as is exercised when assessing whether the plaintiff’s imputations have the capacity to defame. The court found that the statements were capable of being understood in a truthful context, and therefore, the defence of contextual truth was available to the defendant. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s application to have the defence of contextual truth struck out.

The court ordered that the defamation claim proceed to trial, with the availability of the defence of contextual truth to be considered by the jury.