Kriss v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd

The proceedings arose from an article published by John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd in The Australian Financial Review newspaper. The article was critical of the business practices of Kriss and its directors. Kriss sought damages for defamation, injurious falsehood and special damage. The respondent claimed the statements were substantially true and thus privileged. The Federal Court of Australia was required to determine the availability of the Polly Peck defence for interstate publication, as well as the defence of contextual truth, and the requirement for special damage to be proven.

The Court found that the Polly Peck defence was not available as a defence to defamation in this case, because the respondent had failed to prove that the statements were substantially true in all the circumstances. The Court also held that the defence of contextual truth was available to the respondent, as the statements were substantially true when read in their context. The Court further found that the plaintiff was not required to prove special damage as part of its defamation claim, as the statements were defamatory per se.

The Court dismissed Kriss's claims for defamation, injurious falsehood and special damage. The respondent was ordered to pay Kriss's costs of the proceeding.