It was not enough to show that Irving had distorted history, manipulated his sources or mistranslated documents It was insufficient to expose him as a careless historian. To prove the truth of Professor Lipstadt's words, it had to be proved that he had done all this deliberately. In the judge's mind two things established this: first Irving's racism, anti-semitism and associations with far-right extremists; and second the pattern of the distortions. They all tended in one direction - the exculpation of Hitler and the sanitisation of the Nazi regime.History, then, was the background to the case The case was not, though, about history It was about Irving's treatment of history This was another of the case's distinguishing features.

Most cases are an examination of an historical moment: was the murder committed? Was the contract breached? Was the employee fairly dismissed? The judge specifically commented twice in his judgment that his role was not to make decisions about history. His was a value judgment on Mr Irving's integrity and his treatment of the historical record.The newspapers and lawyers have criticised the legal aspects of the case: the historians commenting have doubted the court's ability to deal with historical matters. The experts in the case, however, were impressed by the forensic rigours of the litigation process. Over 32 days of evidence, there was an unfettered, intelligent exploration of the historian's craft and standards with which the court and Mr Justice Gray dealt admirably.A fantastic result softens one's attitude to the courts and the litigation process In the light of last week's decision everything looks rosy. Four years of exceedingly hard work, thousands of files of documents, hundreds of late nights are all worth it. Had Professor Lipstadt lost, no doubt my attitude may have been very different She didn't.

The result was the right one and could perhaps only have happened in this country. In that respect, it is a testament to our libel laws.The calls to alter the law radically should be resisted Changes are happening anyway. Public opinion has seen a move away from the court being so claimant friendly; case law (through the landmark Reynolds ruling) has conferred greater protection for responsible reporting and writing and the Human Rights Act will also have an effect on libel actions, as have the Woolf reforms. For the time being that is enough. James Libson is a partner in Mishcon de Reya. Anthony Julius is a consultant for Mishcon de Reya and junior counsel for Professor Lipstadt.