Entirely unrelated to the fact it was yesterday’s Dictionary.com word of the day, I was discussing the definition of “fulsome” with a colleague today. (To paraphrase The Princess Bride, it does not mean what you may think it means. It is, of course, a prison in Calfornia.)
It reminded me of an exchange during argument in Combet v Commonwealth [2005] HCATrans 633 (which, I should say, Quantum Meruit noted at the time):
MR S J GAGELER SC: Yes. Your Honour, if I need to address that I will. It is certainly not a question that has been raised by our learned friends in their otherwise fulsome defence.
HAYNE J: You ought to look up what “fulsome” used to mean, Mr Gageler, or perhaps your opponent should, and take that on board.
MR GAGELER: I hope I was using it in its modern sense, your Honour, not knowing what it used to mean.
HAYNE J: Sickeningly cloy was I think the sort of notion it had.
MR GAGELER: I will not go back to that.
So armed, feel free to examine its usage in other High Court transcripts, High Court judgments (tsk, tsk, Kirby J), and any of the other AustLII Databases.
