Lennon v Herald & Weekly Times Limited

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the plaintiff, Lennon, brought an action against Herald & Weekly Times Limited for defamation. The dispute centred on whether the defendants' reliance on an earlier publication in mitigation of damages contravened the ‘single meaning rule’. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the pleading in mitigation of damages pertained to the "directly relevant background context" and if the defendants could plead evidence of specific conduct on the part of the plaintiff.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the defendants' reliance on an earlier publication in mitigation of damages contravened the ‘single meaning rule’ and whether the pleading in mitigation of damages went to the "directly relevant background context". Furthermore, the court had to examine if the defendants could plead evidence of specific conduct on the part of the plaintiff.

The court held that the defendants' reliance on an earlier publication in mitigation of damages did not contravene the ‘single meaning rule’ as it pertained to the "directly relevant background context". The court applied the principles from Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 579 and Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 2) (2018) 359 ALR 564, which established that pleading in mitigation of damages could go to the "directly relevant background context". The court also found that the defendants could plead evidence of specific conduct on the part of the plaintiff, referencing Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mohammed (2010) 278 ALR 232. Consequently, the application by the plaintiff to strike out the pleading was granted with leave to replead.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's application to strike out the pleading was granted with leave to replead, allowing the defendants to amend their pleadings to include the relevant background context and specific conduct of the plaintiff.