Food and restaurant critics across the UK, and quite possibly farther afield, will have heaved a (metaphorical) sign of relief after yesterday's Court of Appeal victory by a newspaper in Belfast.

A chill wind had blown through the ranks of restaurant reviewers across the British Isles as a result of a jury finding that an Irish News review of Goodfellas restaurant in west Belfast was defamatory.

Concerns about the case had been raised in a number of publications, including the New York Times and The Times of London.

Lawyers were scrutinising, as never before, such articles - with Times critic Giles Coren saying the new climate was crippling the art of the honest review. "Ever since the finding € we critics have had a hell of a time getting our opinions over," Coren wrote.

What next, some journalists had asked after Goodfallas. Are reviews of theatre, or pop concerts, books or movies to be subject to stifling new restrictions?

The media legal handbook, McNae's Essential Law for Journalists, opens its chapter on defamation with the words: "For the journalist, the publisher and, indeed, for anyone who earns his or her living with words, the law of defamation presents one of the greatest perils."

Yesterday's ruling was, therefore, initially being viewed as an important one for publishers and, indeed, anyone who blogs or runs a website, or even a parish newsletter.

In a nutshell, the Irish News reviewer Caroline Workman had awarded Goodfellas one star out of a possible five, criticising the food, drink, staff and what she said was a smoky atmosphere.

In turn, the owner of Goodfellas, Ciarnan Convery, had maintained that the review, published in August 2000, was a hatchet job. His lawyers said it was defamatory, damaging and hurtful - and a jury unanimously agreed, awarding him £25,000 plus his legal costs, which ran into many thousands of pounds.

Mr Convery's barrister, Michael Lavery QC, told the Court of Appeal that reviewers must be able to offer proof to back up their views, particularly if such views are controversial. He also maintained that the jury had very effectively "isolated the facts from the comment and they looked at the defamatory words".

However, Lord Lester QC, for the Irish News, insisted that as long as no malice or dishonesty is involved, any rating could be justified. "It € did not purport to be a factual report by a food scientist," he said, but a personal description on a customer's experience.

At the end of the day, Lord Justices of Appeal found there had been a misdirection to the original jury and overturned the finding, leaving open a possible retrial. Naturally, the paper was delighted, viewing it as vindication of the right to publish fair, reasonable and informed reviews.

A full study of the ruling will be necessary to digest all its implications, but the case is likely to be seen as pivotal in the continuing tussle between rights and freedoms in defamation law.

It will be studied far beyond this jurisdiction, particularly in those parts of the English-speaking world that cherish the system of common law - that is, law as created or refined by judges guided by legal precedent.

Many important principles have been raised by the case, not least freedom of expression versus protection of reputation. The saga may be set to continue, however. As he pondered his next step yesterday, Mr Convery warned the case was not at an end.