The case provided the Reynolds defence, which could be raised where it was clear that the journalist had a duty to publish an allegation even if it turned out to be wrong.

In adjudicating on an attempted Reynolds defence a court would investigate the conduct of the journalist and the content of the publication.

The appeal to the House of Lords was therefore on the matter of whether the defence of qualified privilege be extended to cover the mass media.

Lord Nicholls, speaking for the majority, upheld Lord Bingham's judgement in the Court of Appeal, adding to it a non-exhaustive list of ten criteria against which attempts to use the defence of qualified privilege should be judged: The elasticity of the common law principle enables interference with freedom of speech to be confined to what is necessary in the circumstances of the case.

This elasticity enables the court to give appropriate weight, in today's conditions, to the importance of freedom of expression by the media on all matters of public concern.

The decision on whether, having regard to the admitted or proved facts, the publication was subject to qualified privilege is a matter for the judge.