Moodie v Nationwide News Pty Ltd
[2002] WASC 246
MOODIE -v- NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD [2002] WASC 246
| Link to Appeal : |
|
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASC 246 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2531/2001 | 8 OCTOBER 2002 | |
| Coram: | HASLUCK J | 31/10/02 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application to strike out allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MICHAEL MOODIE NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD (ACN 008 438 828) |
Catchwords: | Defamation Application to strike out certain paragraphs of the proposed defence Polly Peck defence struck out Qualified privilege defence concerning a parliamentary report struck out Whether a plea concerning the plaintiff's reputation was permissible Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Criminal Code 1913, s 354 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 20 r 19 |
Case References: | General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways of New South Wales (1964) 112 CLR 125 Gumina v Williams (No 2) (1990) 3 WAR 351 Plato Films Ltd v Speidel [1961] AC 1090 Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000 Scott v Sampson [1882] 8 QBD 491 Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309 Templeman v Jones [1984] 1 NZLR 448 Woodger v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd (1992) 107 ACTR 1 Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 335 Bookbinder v Tebbit [1989] 1 All ER 1169 David Syme & Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy (2000) 1 VR 667 Jackson v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 121 Jakudo Pty Ltd v SA Telecasters Ltd (No 2) (1997) 69 SASR 440 Khashoggi v IPC Magazines Ltd [1986] 3 All ER 577 Moir v Flint & Anor [2001] WASC 183 Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663 Reynolds v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 90 Vitale & Ors v Bednall & Anor [2001] WASC 278 Wallis & Ors v Wallis [2001] WASC 134 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD (ACN 008 438 828)
Defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation - Application to strike out certain paragraphs of the proposed defence - Polly Peck defence struck out - Qualified privilege defence concerning a parliamentary report struck out - Whether a plea concerning the plaintiff's reputation was permissible - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Code 1913, s 354
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 20 r 19
Result:
Application to strike out allowed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Ms E McCloskey
Defendant : Mr S M Davies
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Tottle Christensen
Defendant : Edwards Wallace
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways of New South Wales (1964) 112 CLR 125
Gumina v Williams (No 2) (1990) 3 WAR 351
Plato Films Ltd v Speidel [1961] AC 1090
Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000
Scott v Sampson [1882] 8 QBD 491
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309
Templeman v Jones [1984] 1 NZLR 448
Woodger v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd (1992) 107 ACTR 1
Case(s) also cited:
Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 335
Bookbinder v Tebbit [1989] 1 All ER 1169
David Syme & Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy (2000) 1 VR 667
Jackson v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 121
Jakudo Pty Ltd v SA Telecasters Ltd (No 2) (1997) 69 SASR 440
Khashoggi v IPC Magazines Ltd [1986] 3 All ER 577
Moir v Flint & Anor [2001] WASC 183
Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663
Reynolds v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 90
Vitale & Ors v Bednall & Anor [2001] WASC 278
Wallis & Ors v Wallis [2001] WASC 134
(Page 3)
1 HASLUCK J: The Plaintiff, Michael Moodie, has commenced proceedings in defamation against the defendant, Nationwide News Pty Ltd, in respect of two articles published in the defendant's newspaper "The Sunday Times". A statement of claim has been filed and served in which the plaintiff complains of an article published on 8 October 2000 headed "Chief a 'Toecutter'" and of a second article published on 8 October 2000 headed "Moodie Blues in a Sick Situation".
2 The defendant has filed and served a statement of defence. This led to the plaintiff issuing a chamber summons to strike out certain paragraphs of the defence. The chamber summons in question, dated 21 February 2002, has not yet been disposed of. However, in the meantime, as a consequence of various exchanges between the parties, the debate has moved on. The defendant now seeks leave to plead in terms of a further minute of proposed substituted defence dated 4 September 2002. The plaintiff's amended chamber summons filed 4 October 2002 seeks to strike out pars 5, 7, 11 and 13 of the defendant's minute.
3 There are some areas of controversy concerning the defendant's minute. In essence, the question before me is whether the defendant should be granted leave to plead in terms of the 4 September 2002 minute. It was common ground between the parties that leave should not be granted if a pleading in that form is likely to be struck out pursuant to O 20 r 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court on the grounds that the pleading failed to disclose a reasonable defence or might prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action.
4 It follows from this sequence of events that essentially I am required to rule upon a number of specific objections raised by the plaintiff to the proposed statement of defence. The objections go to a proposed Polly Peck defence, a proposed qualified privileged defence and a plea in mitigation concerning the plaintiff's reputation.
The Statement of Claim
5 The first matter complained of is the "Toecutter" article. The article is set out in its entirety and bears upon the standing down of the plaintiff as Chief Executive of Princess Margaret and King Edward Memorial Hospitals.
6 The first article commences with an assertion that "Dumped health boss Michael Moodie was accused of running a mafia style operation before resigning from his last job in NSW." It goes on to say that a 1998
(Page 4)
- News South Wales Parliamentary Inquiry was told that the plaintiff ran the Greater Murray Health Service from behind a wall of silence. It is said that similar complaints resulted in his being stood down as Chief Executive of Princess Margaret and King Edward Memorial Hospitals in this State. It is said that his management style was roundly criticised as "secretive and abrasive".
7 The article continues with further references to his management style in New South Wales and in Perth. Reference is made to certain abuses that may have been brought to light by the plaintiff in the course of his work in Perth.
8 The plaintiff says at par 4 of the statement of claim that the first article in its natural and ordinary meaning contains certain imputations that were defamatory of the plaintiff, namely, that the plaintiff was dishonest in that he knowingly made false claims concerning trust account abuses at Princess Margaret Hospital (par 4(a)); that he was deceitful in that he made false claims concerning trust account abuses at the said hospital so as to conceal his own ruthless conduct as Chief Executive of the hospital (par 4(b)); that he acted as a "mafioso" in performing his duties as Chief of the Greater Murray Health Service (par 4(c)); that he acts as a mafioso in performing his duties as Chief Executive of the Princess Margaret and King Edward Memorial Hospitals using mafia tactics to enforce his policy (par 4(d)).
9 The second article "Moodie Blues" speaks of the plaintiff being thrown on the Public Service scrapheap. It refers to a leaked report concerning abuse of trust funds and suggests that certain doctors might be opposing the plaintiff because he was investigating them. Reference was made to the plaintiff's management style and to his last job as Chief Executive Officer of the Greater Murray Area Health Service in New South Wales. The article contained a sentence referring to a parliamentary inquiry in New South Wales into health service delivery which was supposedly "told that Michael Moodie's operation of the GMHS was similar to the mafia's stranglehold in southern Italy."
10 The plaintiff pleads in par 6 of the claim that the second article in its natural and ordinary meaning conveyed imputations that were defamatory of the plaintiff, namely: that he was dishonest in that he knowingly made false claims concerning trust account abuses (par 6(a)); that he was dishonest in that he made false claims concerning trust account abuses so as to conceal his own ruthless conduct as Chief Executive of the hospitals in question (par 6(b)); that he was deceitful in that he knowingly made
(Page 5)
- false claims concerning instances of hospital neglect at King Edward Hospital (par 6(c)); that he was dishonest in that he made false claims concerning instances of hospital neglect at King Edward Hospital so as to conceal his own ruthless conduct as Chief Executive of that hospital (par 6(d)); that he shamefully exploited his false claims concerning instances of hospital neglect at King Edward Hospital so as to conceal his own ruthless conduct as Chief Executive of that hospital (6(e)); that he has engaged in dishonest conduct in instigating the commissioning of an inquiry into instances of hospital neglect at King Edward Hospital in circumstances where there was no justification for such an inquiry (6(f)); that he acted as a mafioso in performing his duties as Chief Executive of the King Edward and Princess Margaret Hospitals (6(g)); that he is a dishonest, ruthless mafioso style executive (6(h)).
The Power to Strike Out
11 As I have already noted, O 20 r 19 provides that the Court may strike out any pleading on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of defence or it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action. It is apparent from previously decided cases such as General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways of New South Wales (1964) 112 CLR 125 that there is a need for caution in exercising the power to strike out pleadings in order to ensure that the party whose plea is attacked is not improperly deprived of an opportunity for the trial of his case by the appointed tribunal.
12 The plaintiff, in a case such as this, must establish that the plea is so obviously untenable it cannot possibly succeed or is manifestly groundless: Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309. For the purposes of an application of this kind, the Court will not go outside the pleadings and will assume that evidence can be adduced to substantiate the allegations in the relevant pleadings.
13 The decided cases indicate also that a court at first instance should be careful not to risk stifling the development of the law by summarily rejecting a line of defence where there is a reasonable possibility that, as the law develops, it will be found that the defence in question has merit.
The Polly Peck Issue
14 In par 7 of the 4 September 2002 minute, the defendant seeks to plead that if the first article was defamatory of the plaintiff, the words
(Page 6)
- complained of bear the meanings contended for by the defendant and such words were true in substance and in fact.
15 The meanings contended for are that the plaintiff in performing his duties as Chief Executive Officer of the Greater Murray Health Service and the hospitals in this State was dictatorial and secretive in his management style (par 7.1); that the plaintiff in performing his duties as Chief Executive Officer of the hospitals in this State was dictatorial and secretive in his management style (par 7.2); that the plaintiff dishonestly asserted that the reason for the criticisms that had been made about the plaintiff by doctors at the hospitals in this State was the trust account investigation that the plaintiff had launched when the plaintiff knew that the true reason for the criticism of the plaintiff was his management style (par 7.3)
16 In regard to each of these defence pleas lengthy particulars are provided of facts and matters which are said to establish that the plaintiff was dictatorial and secretive in his management style or otherwise that he had made dishonest assertions when he knew that the true reason for the criticism of him was his management style.
17 As to this line of defence, the plaintiff submits that the imputations sought to be pleaded by the defendant do not lie within the scope of the Polly Peck concept because the plea put up by the defendant is significantly different from the case advanced by the plaintiff.
18 The Polly Peck defence is named after Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000. It emerges from that case that a defendant is entitled to look at the whole publication in order to aver that in their context the words complained of bear a meaning different from that alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant is entitled to plead that in the meaning thus contended for the words are true, and to give particulars of the facts and matters upon which he relies in support of his plea.
19 The principle has been applied in a number of cases in this State upon the basis that a defendant who wishes to justify the words complained of in a meaning different from the meaning pleaded by the plaintiff must plead the meaning relied upon by the defendant and must plead justification in terms which make it clear that it is that meaning which is sought to be justified: Gumina v Williams (No 2) (1990) 3 WAR 351.
20 It is clear, however, that the Polly Peck defence must be narrowly confined to imputations and meanings similar to the imputations
(Page 7)
- contended for by the plaintiff, bearing in mind, that the plaintiff is at liberty to complain only of certain passages or aspects of the publication in question: Templeman v Jones [1984] 1 NZLR 448.
21 It follows from this that the imputations must relate to a distinct charge arising from the words complained of. A Polly Peck imputation cannot be more injurious or damaging than the plaintiff's imputation. Further, the scope of what can be pleaded in a Polly Peck defence is affected by the extent to which the tribunal of fact may depart from the imputations pleaded by the plaintiff and yet still find in the plaintiff's favour.
22 I pause to note that, at the hearing before me, counsel for the defendant argued that Miles CJ in Woodger v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd (1992) 107 ACTR 1 had provided a useful overview of the defence. His Honour said at 23 - 24 that where the plaintiff alleges several distinct defamatory meanings but there is arguably a "common sting" to them upon which the plaintiff does not expressly rely, then the defendant may seek to justify the common sting and the plaintiff is not entitled to restrict the defendant to seeking to justify the several meanings selected by the plaintiff. Miles CJ called this "the first Polly Peck principle."
23 His Honour went on to say that where the plaintiff alleges several distinct defamatory meanings but the defendant denies the meanings alleged by the plaintiff and asserts an arguable claim that in the context of the whole publication a different defamatory meaning or several different defamatory meanings from that or those alleged by the plaintiff arise, the defendant may seek to justify that different defamatory meaning or meanings. The plaintiff is not entitled to restrict the defendant to seeking to justify the meaning or meanings selected by the plaintiff. His Honour called this "the second Polly Peck principle".
24 Counsel for the defendant submitted that in the present case reliance was being placed upon the second Polly Peck principle. This meant that it was open to the defendant to plead less injurious meanings concerning the plaintiff's supposed management style. The defendant was at liberty to place the emphasis upon the allegedly dictatorial and secretive nature of the plaintiff's management style bearing in mind that the first article referred explicitly to his management style as being "secretive and abrasive".
(Page 8)
25 Counsel for the plaintiff answered this by submitting that the plaintiff was at liberty to single out and complain only of certain passages of the publication in question. The matters complained of in par 4(c) and par 4(d) of the statement of claim complained of assertions that the plaintiff had acted as a mafioso and had used mafia tactics to enforce his policy. It was the defendant's decision to write an article charging the plaintiff with conduct akin to criminal conduct and the defendant should be required to plead to such an assertion accordingly. It should not be permitted to justify different meanings that had the effect of watering down an allegation that was concerned essentially with criminal or ruthless conduct.
26 Counsel for the plaintiff referred to the Macquarie Concise Dictionary (2nd ed) with a view to demonstrating the gap between the respective contentions. According to the Macquarie Dictionary, a dictator is a person exercising absolute power, especially one who assumes absolute control in a government without hereditary right or the consent of the people. A dictator can also be regarded as a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct or usage, or is a domineering or overbearing person.
27 The meaning attributed by the Macquarie Dictionary to "mafia" is any group seen as resembling the Mafia, a criminal society of Sicilians or other Italians, by having a close knit organisation or in-group feelings. The word "ruthless" means without pity or compassion; pitiless or merciless.
28 I consider that the Polly Peck defence in the present case must be confined to imputations and meanings similar to the imputations contended for by the plaintiff, bearing in mind, that the plaintiff is entitled to single out and complain only of certain passages or aspects of the publication in question, provided that he does not thereby deprive the defendant of reliance upon the common sting in the allegation.
29 I consider that the imputations pleaded by the plaintiff in par 4(c) and par 4(d) are essentially confined to imputations concerning criminal conduct and impropriety. An assertion that a person is acting in the manner of the mafia would surely convey to an ordinary reader that the person is acting in breach of the law or, at least, conforms to the practices of a group that stands outside or ignores the law. To my mind, this is significantly different from an assertion that a person is acting in an overbearing or secretive manner. In the present case, the tenor of the
(Page 9)
- words complained of are far stronger than the meanings sought to be relied upon by the defendant.
30 I consider that the plaintiff's application to strike out the putative Polly Peck plea in par 7.1 and 7.2 of the 4 September 2002 minute on the ground that the plea discloses no reasonable defence and/or that it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action should be allowed.
31 The plaintiff mounted a challenge to the defendant's proposed plea in par 7.3. However, on this occasion I consider that the proposed Polly Peck plea is sufficiently related to the case advanced by the plaintiff. The imputations pleaded by the plaintiff essentially concern an allegation of dishonest conduct designed to veil the purpose related to the plaintiff's management style. It seems to me that the proposed par 7.3 is directed to matters of that kind and otherwise conforms to the limitations associated with the Polly Peck defence I mentioned earlier. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the proposed plea should be struck out.
32 It is apparent from the plaintiff's written submissions and the form of the proposed pleading at par 13 of the 4 September 2002 minute that the same issues arise in regard to the defendant's justification plea concerning the second article. The defendant at par 13.1 to par 13.3 relies upon the Polly Peck concept and seeks to plead an imputation in par 13.1 and par 13.2 that the plaintiff was dictatorial and secretive in his management style. The particulars to par 7.1 and par 7.2 are repeated. The plea in par 13.3 equates to the earlier plea in par 7.3 concerning the first article.
33 It follows from earlier discussion that the defendant will not be allowed leave to plead in terms of the proposed par 13.1 and par 13.2 as a plea in that form fails to disclose a reasonable defence and is embarrassing.
Qualified Privilege
34 The 4 September 2002 minute contains pleas of qualified privilege in respect of the first and second articles in two discrete forms. One finds in par 4 concerning the first article, and in par 10 concerning the second article, a plea of qualified privilege upon the basis that the words complained of were a communication on a government or political matter. The plaintiff does not raise a challenge to those pleas and I will say no more about them.
(Page 10)
35 One finds in par 5 and par 11 of the proposed defence, in respect of the first and second articles respectively, a plea to the effect that if the matter complained of was defamatory of the plaintiff, the matter complained of consisted of a fair and accurate report of parliamentary proceedings and accordingly was published on an occasion of qualified privilege.
36 The particulars in support of the plea are the same in each case. Accordingly, for ease of reference, it will be sufficient to refer to the particulars set out in support of par 5 which are in these terms:
"5.1 At a Standing Committee Inquiry into the budgetary processes of the New South Wales Department of Health held at Wagga Wagga on 23 February 1998 evidence was taken from witnesses in relation to the management of the Greater Murray Health Service.
5.2 On 23 February 1998 Councillor Braybrooks agreed with the proposition that the plaintiff was running the Greater Murray Health Service a bit like the mafia is reputed to be running Southern Italy.
5.3 To the extent that the words complained or referred to the said inquiry, namely, the headlines, paragraphs 1, 2, 5 to 10 (inclusive) of the first matter complained of, they constituted a fair and accurate report of the said Inquiry, which took place in public before a Standing Committee Inquiry in New South Wales and the words are protected by qualified privilege and by section 354 of the Criminal Code 1913."
37 It is well known that Members of Parliament enjoy absolute immunity from civil and criminal liability for anything said in the course of parliamentary proceedings. It is well known also that fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings were entitled to qualified privilege at common law. In most jurisdictions the privilege is now statutory.
38 By s 354 of the Criminal Code it is lawful to publish in good faith, for the information of the public, a fair report of the proceedings of a House of the Parliament of any State or of a committee or joint committee of any such House. Further, it is lawful to publish in good faith for the information of the public a fair report of any inquiry held under the authority of a statute or ordinance of the Commonwealth or a State.
(Page 11)
39 The defendant contended at the hearing before me that it was not open to the plaintiff to raise an objection to this issue as it had not been the subject of any previous controversy in the various exchanges concerning the pleading. I am not satisfied that the matter should be viewed in that light. This is the first occasion on which objections to the statement of defence have come before the Court. I consider that it is open to the plaintiff to address this matter.
40 It appears from Gatley on "Libel and Slander" (9th ed) at par 14.89 that a fair and accurate report in a newspaper or otherwise of any debate or proceeding in either House of Parliament, or in any committee thereof is privileged at common law. The publication is privileged on the same principle as a fair and accurate report of the proceedings in a court of justice, namely that the advantage of publicity to the community at large outweighs any private injury resulting from the publication.
41 The learned author goes on to say that there is a great deal of case law on the meaning of a fair and accurate report in the context of judicial proceedings but comparatively little on parliamentary proceedings. It has been said that there is an analogy between the two types of report. Whatever would deprive a report of the proceedings in a court of justice of immunity, will equally apply to a report of proceedings in Parliament.
42 The decided cases appear to recognise that it is open to a reporter to present an impression of a debate and select its memorable features, but a garbled or partial report will not be sufficient.
43 I consider that the same approach must apply when a report is provided to the public of the progress or outcome of a governmental inquiry. When I apply this approach to the circumstances of the present case I am not satisfied that it is open to the defendant to rely upon a passing and obviously incomplete reference to the contents of an inquiry in New South Wales as a basis for raising a plea of qualified privilege in regard to articles which are concerned with a different set of circumstances in another State. The references in the articles to what are said in New South Wales strikes me as in the nature of gratuitous asides which, in the context of the articles before me, were not intended to report on or to illuminate matters under discussion in that State but, rather, were being used selectively for an entirely different purpose, namely, to underpin criticisms of the plaintiff's management style in this State. There was no real basis for the public to make a comparison between the two sets of circumstances.
(Page 12)
44 I will accept, for the purposes of the notional striking out application before me, that evidence can be adduced to underpin the particulars referred to earlier. Hence, I accept that a reference was made in the course of the Standing Committee Inquiry in New South Wales to the plaintiff running the Greater Murray Health Service a bit like the mafia is reputed to be running Southern Italy. However, I am not persuaded that this isolated reference can be said to constitute a fair and accurate report or that the proposed qualified privilege plea can be sustained in regard to the articles complained of.
45 It follows that I am not prepared to grant leave to the defendant to amend in the manner reflected in par 5 and par 11 of the 4 September 2002 minute. I do not consider that a reasonable defence is disclosed by the proposed pleading.
Bad Reputation Plea
46 The defendant's 4 September 2002 minute contains a plea in par 16 that the defendant will rely in mitigation of damages on certain facts and matters which are then set out. Paragraph 16.1 refers to the delay of the plaintiff of almost 12 months in commencing proceedings. Paragraph 16.2 commences in these terms:
"16.2 The plaintiff has at all material times borne a general reputation as having an abrasive and ruthless management style, and being an administrator who carried out a regime of restructuring and introduction of management systems, processes and procedures, without consulting employees or interested parties to obtain constructive criticism or comment and for creating an environment where policy decisions and management objectives were not openly discussed."
47 One finds in Australian Defamation Law and Practice at par 21,010 a reference to an ongoing controversy concerning the use of evidence about reputation. It is said that in Scott v Sampson [1882] 8 QBD 491 Cave J established the limits as to the use of such evidence. First, evidence of general bad reputation is admissible in mitigation of damages. Second, evidence of rumour to the effect that the plaintiff had done what was alleged against him in the defamation is inadmissible. Third, evidence of particular acts of misconduct by the plaintiff showing bad character on the issue of mitigation of damages is inadmissible.
(Page 13)
48 The learned authors suggest that Scott v Sampson (supra) has survived challenge and remains an authoritative statement of the law. The learned authors refer in that respect to Plato Films Ltd v Speidel [1961] AC 1090. It is apparent from a consideration of the various judgments in the latter case, including that of Lord Radcliffe, that there is a degree of ambiguity in understanding and applying the principle of Scott v Sampson (supra) that general evidence of bad reputation is admissible while as evidence of particular facts tending to show the character and disposition of the plaintiff is not.
49 I note that in the present case the pleading is framed in terms of the plaintiff having a "general reputation" of a particular kind. It therefore seems to me, having regard to the decided cases, that one cannot characterise such a plea as untenable, for the authorities suggest that evidence of general bad reputation is admissible in mitigation of damages. The proposed line of defence appears to be arguable.
50 Against this background, I am not prepared to hold that the pleading should be struck out. It will be a matter for the trial Judge as to whether the evidence led at trial is consistent with the plea. In its present form I am not prepared to hold that the plea and the particulars in support of it are embarrassing or would prejudice the fair trial of the action.
Summary
51 In summary, then, pars 7.1, 7.2, 13.1 and 13.2 concerning the Polly Peck issue and pars 5 and 11 concerning the qualified privilege issue of the 4 September 2002 minute will be struck out. The defendant will be allowed leave to replead the proposed defence. I will hear from the parties as to the appropriate orders.
0