Congratulations to all who persisted for three an a half years. This is a resounding victory for common sense and freedom to criticise dubious statements without fear of being sued.

It also demonstrates the “point and edge” dictum of using very focussed aims to solve an issue instead of trying to solve many diverse problems on which agreement is less easy to gain.

It is often the only way to get politicians to back and drive forward measures without having to compromise widely.

George Greenwood

I would just like to pick up on one small point in the article although it may be very important to some 70 potential and actual defendants in a libel case which went unreported by Libel Reform. (Smith V ADVFN) The defendants won that case hands down with no legal representation.

Anyway the judgement in that case has huge implications for many other cases and contains virtually all the reasons why 80% of libel claims have failed these last few years. The case covers many aspects of libel law and defences.

Anyway, that case was presided over by Mr Justice Eady and the judgement is excellent and considering the non representation of defendants,he did as much as possible to make the process and experience easier for them. Other libel defendants also have reason to be grateful for his insight into their cases.

He made some mistakes along the way (Simon Singh) and we have remember he had to work with an unsatisfactory law which was never popular. However those who criticise this judge fail to appreciate the good decisions he reached.

Therefore – hats off to Mr Justice Eady who in the period we were waiting for the law to change, assisted many libel defendants with common sense and more reasonable interpretations of a dated law.