In a s 7A(3) defamation trial, where the article is capable of being understood in either a defamatory or non-defamatory sense, the choice between those meanings is a matter for the jury and a verdict adopting the non-defamatory meaning will not be set aside as unreasonable. Counsel's submissions to a jury, even if colourful, will be assessed as a whole and in context; it is only in an extreme case that counsel's address can be seen to have caused a miscarriage of justice. The dissent raises an unresolved question about the adequacy of judicial directions where counsel asserts as medical fact matters not in evidence and not manifestly within general knowledge.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.