A prior interlocutory ruling that defamatory imputations are arguable does not preclude the defendant from contending at trial that the words are incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning, because the interlocutory test (manifestly groundless) is more stringent than the trial test (actually capable). The Polly Peck defence permitting alternative meanings must be narrowly confined to meanings sharing a common sting with the plaintiff's imputations and is unavailable where the plaintiff's imputations are severable and distinct from the alternative meanings.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.