Elliott v West Australian Newspapers Ltd

In the matter of Elliott v West Australian Newspapers Ltd, the dispute revolves around defamatory statements published in The West Australian newspaper. The plaintiff, Elliott, sought to strike out a particular plea in defence presented by the defendants, West Australian Newspapers Ltd. This plea, often referred to as the "Polly Peck" defence, was based on the imputation that the plaintiff was suspected or suspected on reasonable grounds of engaging in certain conduct, which was considered defamatory. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the defendants could plead and seek to justify meanings that the plaintiff was suspected or suspected on reasonable grounds of the conduct in question. This turned on the specific facts of the case and the principles governing the "Polly Peck" defence. The court had to determine whether the defence was appropriate and whether it should be struck out.

The court found that the "Polly Peck" defence was not applicable in this instance. The court reasoned that the defence, which involves an imputation of suspicion or suspicion on reasonable grounds, is not a valid defence in defamation cases unless the plaintiff can prove actual malice. The court held that the defendants could not rely on the "Polly Peck" defence without first proving actual malice. Consequently, the plea in defence was struck out.

The final order of the court was that the "Polly Peck" plea in defence presented by the defendants was to be struck out, and the case would proceed without this defence.