The Court held that a general imputation about a plaintiff's state of mind (e.g., wanting someone killed) is capable of differing in substance from a specific imputation about an act (e.g., paying to have someone murdered) for the purposes of the contextual truth defence, and that the reply to attack defence may extend to defamation of third parties where the response is commensurate with the occasion.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 30 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 30 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.