Judges deserve credit this month for giving short shrift to two weak defamation claims – but free speech campaigners continue to press for radical reform of English libel law.

The first notable case, on 6 November, concerned a piece in the Daily Telegraph’s Mandrake diary column.

Amid references to Sir Paul McCartney’s call for ‘meat-free Mondays’ and his daughter Stella McCartney’s refusal to use animal products in her range of designer clothes, Mandrake said fashion designer Petra Ecclestone planned to launch a range of womenswear in leather, and quoted her as saying: “I am not a veggie and I don’t have much time for people like the McCartneys and Annie Lennox.”

Ms Ecclestone alleged the words were defamatory and meant she was “disrespectful and dismissive of the McCartneys and Annie Lennox to the point of being willing to disparage them publicly for promoting vegetarianism.”

But the judge, Mrs Justice Sharp, would have none of it. She said people would not think less of Ms Ecclestone upon reading the column.

She said: “I simply do not think it is capable of lowering the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally. It might be that a sector of the public (ie those who disapproved of the use of leather or eating animal products) could think the less of the claimant for taking the opposite stance, and might even do so because of what she is reported to have said about the McCartneys and Annie Lennox. But the test is not whether a sector of the public could think less of the claimant…but whether ordinary reasonable people in our society as a whole, or ‘the public’ generally could do so.”

She added that the phrase ‘haven’t much time for’ is a “commonly used and perfectly acceptable way of expressing a difference of opinion or preference.”

The judge struck out the libel claim at an early stage and said it was irrelevant that Ms Ecclestone denied she had ever said the quoted remark.

Another defamation claim, LonZim Plc & others v Sprague, was struck out on 11 November for being an abuse of process. The claimants had sued for libel over quotes given by the defendant to a South African weekly magazine called Financial Mail, which has a few online readers in the UK. They also sued for slander over remarks allegedly made at a company AGM by a dissatisfied shareholder.

But the judge, Mr Justice Tugendhat, found that in a two-month period the Financial Mail’s website was accessed only about four times within the UK as a whole, and that number was likely to be even smaller within the jurisdiction of England and Wales itself.

As to the alleged slander, the judge said it was in the public interest for there to be a free expression of views at company meetings, with differences being resolved by votes cast rather than by defamation actions.

Striking out the libel and slander claims, he held they were an abuse of the process of the court. In doing so, he applied the important principle established in 2005 in the case of Jameel v Dow Jones under which the English court will not allow defamation actions to continue unless it is clear a “real and substantial” wrong has been committed within this jurisdiction, having regard to the extent of publication and the degree of harm to reputation.

However, such sensible and pragmatic rulings appear insufficient to persuade many publishers that English libel law is fit for purpose.

Some American newspapers and magazines, for example, are said to be considering whether it is still worth the risk of supplying the 200-odd copies they make available for sale in this country for subscribers and hotels, because London is still regarded as the libel capital of the world.

Foreign publishers are also reported to be considering blocking access to their websites in this country for fear of being sued for libel here.

Media organisations including The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times recently sent a Memorandum to the House of Commons, outlining their concerns about English libel law’s ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression.

And pressure groups Index on Censorship and English PEN recently issued a report calling for radical reform of our libel law to facilitate the free exchange of ideas and information. Their report makes 10 key recommendations, such as capping damages at £10,000, expanding Fair Comment and Public Interest defences, and curtailing the right of corporations to sue for libel.

Such radical reform is unlikely to be forthcoming quickly. Meanwhile judges who are willing to strike out weak claims at an early stage, removing the onerous burden of libel proceedings and limiting costs, deserve credit.