Sydney Refractive Surgery and 3 Ors v Beaumont and 2 Ors

The parties involved in this case were Sydney Refractive Surgery and three other defendants against Beaumont and two others. The nature of the dispute was defamation, with the defendants seeking leave to file and rely on an amended defence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants argued that the jury found the imputations to have been conveyed, and they were relying on the "Polly Peck" defence, which required the substantial truth of the defamatory imputations to be particularised.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the defendants were entitled to file and rely on an amended defence and, if so, whether the particularisation of the substantial truth of the defamatory imputations was sufficient. The court had to consider the requirements for the "Polly Peck" defence and whether the defendants had adequately particularised the substantial truth. The court also had to determine whether the defendants' failure to particularise the substantial truth earlier was a valid reason for allowing the amendment.

The court held that the defendants were entitled to file and rely on an amended defence, as the jury had found that the imputations were conveyed. However, the court found that the particularisation of the substantial truth was not sufficient. The court noted that the "Polly Peck" defence requires the substantial truth to be particularised with sufficient particularity to enable the plaintiff to answer the defence. The court found that the defendants had not provided sufficient particularisation of the substantial truth, and their failure to do so earlier was not a valid reason for allowing the amendment. Therefore, the court dismissed the defendants' application to file and rely on an amended defence.