Does the recent draft bill for libel reform go far enough to change the status quo?

Too much expectation can sometimes be a bad thing. Take libel reform. Given that campaigners have for years sought substantive changes to defamation laws, the emergence last week of a draft bill delivering reform should have been a good thing. Instead, the reforms have managed the neat track of leaving many practising lawyers grumbling that it merely codifies current case law (a debatable point) while supporters of the status quo have howled with indignation.

Yet some of the claims of the bill's insignificance are surely overdone. Key provisions include introducing a substantial harm test as a pre-condition for libel claims, which proponents argue will weed out weaker actions at an early stage and prevent aggressive claimants from abusing the system.