In NSW defamation proceedings, a defendant cannot plead and justify alternative imputations not substantially different from those pleaded by the plaintiff (the Hore-Lacy pleading technique). The defendant must defend the plaintiff's pleaded case by reference to the plaintiff's imputations. The 'general law' preserved by ss 6 and 24 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) is affected by the UCPR, so that procedural differences between States may produce different outcomes despite uniform substantive defamation legislation. Prior NSW Court of Appeal authorities that appeared to accept Hore-Lacy pleading did not address the specific question of its availability in NSW and are not binding on the point.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.