The Hore-Lacy justification defence remains available in Victoria under the Defamation Act 2005, either as part of the general law preserved by s 6(2) or as an available pleading within s 25. Where a defendant pleads variant meanings, the judge's role at the pleading stage is limited to determining whether the variant meaning is capable of falling within the Hore-Lacy principles; the question whether it is in fact not substantially different is for the jury. Imputations using words drawn from the defamatory publication itself are less susceptible to a vagueness challenge than imputations that are constructs using words not found in the publication. The question whether particulars of truth can cure an otherwise impermissibly vague HL justification imputation remains open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 26 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 26 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.