The Court held that evidence of specific conduct by a defamation plaintiff is admissible in mitigation of damages if it constitutes 'directly relevant background context', but this extends to facts generally, not just misconduct. The Court clarified that opinions held by regulators or agencies about the plaintiff are inadmissible - only the underlying facts matter. The Court emphasised that discretionary case management principles under s 37M of the Federal Court Act guide whether borderline particulars should be allowed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.