Manock v Advertiser News-Weekend Publishing Co Ltd

Manock v Advertiser News-Weekend Publishing Co Ltd is a defamation case in which the plaintiff seeks damages for libel arising from articles published in a newspaper by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the articles contained defamatory imputations, and the defendant responded by pleading justification and providing detailed particulars. The defendant also sought to justify alternative meanings of the words in question. The plaintiff applied to have certain paragraphs of the defendant's Defence struck out, arguing that the particulars of justification and the alternative meanings were impermissible.

The court had to determine whether the defendant could plead alternative meanings and if the particulars provided in the Defence were permissible. The court considered the relevant legal principles governing when a defendant can plead and justify alternative meanings, and whether the Polly Peck defence, which allows for the consideration of alternative meanings, is applicable in Australia. The court found that certain paragraphs of the Defence were impermissible and were struck out, while others were allowed to stand.

In summary, the court ruled that certain paragraphs of the Defence were not permissible and were struck out. The court also declined to strike out other paragraphs, finding that they were reasonably arguable. The court will hear the parties on the appropriate orders, including any other orders and the question of costs, in light of these reasons.