Robinson v Laws

In Robinson v Laws, the appellant, Mr Robinson, sued the respondents for defamation in the Queensland Supreme Court. The respondents, in their defence, advanced alternative meanings to those particularised by the appellant as defamatory. The appellant then sought to strike out parts of the amended defence on the basis that the alternative meanings were not genuine. The respondents argued that they could rely on a Polly Peck defence, which would allow them to assert their alternative meanings. The court had to determine whether the respondents' alternative meanings were genuine, if the Polly Peck defence was available in Queensland, and if the amended defence was excessively repetitious and prejudicial to a fair trial.

The court held that the respondents' alternative meanings were not genuine, as they were not truly denying the appellant's particularised meanings. The court also found that the Polly Peck defence was not available in Queensland, given the state's imputation-focused defamation law and civil procedure rules. The court further determined that the amended defence was excessively repetitious and prolix, which could prejudice a fair trial. The disclosure of the respondents' convictions, whose rehabilitation periods had expired, was also impermissible as the appellant had not "wished" to disclose them.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the orders made at first instance. The respondents' amended defence was ordered to be struck out, and they were granted leave to replead within 28 days. The respondents were also ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the application and the appeal, to be assessed. This decision highlights the importance of genuine alternative meanings in defamation cases and the limitations of the Polly Peck defence in Queensland.