The new Act enables individuals or businesses to lodge claims, but only where they can show that defamation of them has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. Businesses can only be said to have suffered 'serious harm' if they can demonstrate that they have experienced, or are likely to experience "serious financial loss" as a result of defamatory comments.
I smell the stench of civil servants desperate to minimise their workload all over this one. It was the CPS after all that accepted the excuse of 'no criminal intent' in regards to Phorm trials undertaken by BT (the bullshit meter just exploded on that one considering the lengths BT went to in order to conceal the trials) and it was the various police forces around the country that refused to take on other potentially illegal interception by the telcos. Also note the resistance the police put up over claims of phone hacking before being forced into taking action.
Also I wonder who gets to determine what constitutes 'serious' harm?
"In the main, the new 'serious harm' threshold should help discourage trivial or vexatious claims from being brought before the courts, or at the very least ensure they are eliminated at an early stage in proceedings," Birdsey said.
Umm... Trivial or not - and again who gets to determine this? - if an offense has been committed should those responsible not be punished?
It's amazing the lengths civil and crown servants will go to in order to avoid actually having to do their job...