As the Government prepares its consultation on UK libel law in 2009, the latest cases provide plenty of food for thought.

They continue to raise points relevant to Junior Minister Bridget Prentice’s recently announced review of defamatory Internet publications and the cost of libel proceedings.

Take the case of Greek resident John Mardas, a former director of Apple Electronics, who knew The Beatles.

He is suing the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune in this country over a relatively small number of publications, claiming they portrayed him as a conman and charlatan. The articles were published last year, following the death of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a guru linked with the Fab Four in the 1960s.

One newspaper admitted there had been only 177 print-edition publications and 4 online hits in this country, and the other claimed it had 27 online hits but had not published the article here in hardcopy.

Previously, the Court of Appeal made clear in Jameel v Dow Jones that claimants suing for defamation after only limited publication risked having their claims stayed as an ‘abuse of process.’

In Jameel, only five people had read the contentious online article and the court stopped the claim in its tracks because any damages and vindication would only be “minimal.”

In Mardas’ case, a High Court Master took a similar line, striking the claims out. But on appeal, Mr Justice Eady reinstated the claims and warned against engaging in a crude “numbers game.”

He said the evidence about how many people had read the material online was currently incomplete, and even on the numbers currently available, it was arguable that a real and substantial tort (civil wrong) had been committed in this country.

The judge said: “It may well be that in due course international agreement will be reached as to the appropriate way of resolving claims arising out of Internet publication. That is plainly desirable. For the time being, however, courts are obliged to apply the law as it stands.”

He did, however, indicate that “a few dozen” publications would be enough to found a libel claim – which suggests that less than a few dozen might yet be insufficient.

The case shows publishers must remain on their guard against website libel claims, even where there have been relatively few hits.

No doubt the Government’s review will also note how major corporations have been zealously suing for defamation.

Last year, supermarket giant Tesco took on The Guardian for alleged libel and malicious falsehood. The multinational secured an Offer of Amends, but Mr Justice Eady felt it necessary to ‘stay’ its malicious falsehood claim as it had no “substantive or legitimate purpose” and risked diverting the court’s processes to “the pursuit of pointless objectives.”

This was followed by a libel claim by telecoms giant Tiscali UK against British Telecom. Tiscali sued over a letter (including a weblink) that BT sent to Tiscali’s customers to try to persuade them to transfer to BT’s broadband service. It claimed the letter and webpage meant Tiscali had been guilty of a lack of honesty and candour towards customers.

But even the best corporate efforts to litigate for defamation, led by a top QC, were thwarted when Mr Justice Eady struck out the libel claim saying it was a step too far to suggest any reasonable reader would interpret the words as saying Tiscali was dishonest or in breach of duty.

For light relief, those involved in the Government’s consultation need look no further than Sir Elton John’s latest libel litigation and remember that words do not always mean what they say.

The musician’s claim against the Guardian, alleging that a satirical diary in its Weekend section had defamed him, was given short shrift by Mr Justice Tugendhat who said the piece was clearly an attempt at ironic humour.

“Irony is a figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used,” the judge helpfully clarified. But no doubt politicians are already well aware that words can mean the opposite of what is actually said.