Media lawyers in London today welcomed the law lords' rejection of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe, saying it would strengthen "serious", investigative journalism carried out in the public interest.

Mark Stephens, a partner at Finers Stephens Innocent and a Times Online columnist, who represented the Wall Street Journal Europe, said: "For too long the libel courts have treated Reynolds' ten factors as ten trip wires for the media, rendering the defence a snare and an illusion.

"The law lords today have balanced the right to know by allowing responsibly published libellous information to be protected provided it is reported in a matter of public interest. This is a decision which will free responsible investigative journalists from threats of libel."

Jane Phillips, barrister, One Brick Court, said: "The House of Lords has unanimously breathed life back into the Reynolds defence, reaffirming its 'liberalising intention' and the need for the Courts to maintain a flexible approach to stories written responsibly on matters of public interest."

Gill Phillips, a media lawyer at The Times, said: "Lord Hoffman has re-iterated what we all long knew but the Judges wouldn't accept - that Reynolds is primarily a public interest defence allied with responsible journalism.

"His open criticism of the overly rigid approach adopted by Eady J - that the ten Nicholls matters were in effect hurdles that had to be jumped - is to be welcomed as is his comment that these matters should be judged with regard to 'practical realities'".

Dan Tench, a media partner at Olswang, said: "The judgment has enormous significance for serious journalism. Previously, the focus of libel hearings defended on the basis of the Reynolds defence was always on the newspaper, which faced an uphill struggle to demonstrate that it had acted responsibly.

"But following today’s ruling, it seems that as long as a publisher can show that it was writing serious journalism that engages the genuine public interest and so deserves to be protected, the focus will shift onto the claimant, who will need to prove not only that there were serious defects in the way the article was put together but also that those defects realistically led to the article as published being unfair."

Keith Mathieson, a media partner at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, said: "The ruling reminds the courts that the Nicholls factors [used to determine whether an article deserves the Reynolds defence] are not hurdles to be jumped, at any one of which the media may fall flat on their face; but rather they are indicators which are designed to assist the court in deciding whether the material should be protected."

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure