This newspaper does not always find itself sympathising with The Daily Telegraph, but the libel award of £150,000 to George Galloway, MP, should resonate ominously way beyond the executive corridors of Canary Wharf.

In April last year the Telegraph reported that Iraqi documents found in Baghdad showed that the MP for Glasgow Kelvin had received large sums of money from the regime of Saddam Hussein. The newspaper alleged that his behaviour was tantamount to treason and Mr Galloway unsurprisingly sued. At no stage during his libel trial were the documents themselves seriously disputed. What was contested was how they were interpreted and if the Telegraph was entitled to take them at face value and not only accuse Mr Galloway of “taking money for himself” but also suggest that his behaviour amounted to “treason”.

Yesterday Mr Justice Eady concluded that the newspaper was under “no duty” to publish what it did and that the public did not need a “blizzard of interpretation” on top of the actual documents. What is unclear is whether the newspaper would have won if (unrealistically) it had opted to publish the documents without any comment.

The Telegraph chose to claim qualified privilege under the Reynolds defence. This takes its name from a libel action brought by Albert Reynolds, a former Irish Prime Minister, against The Sunday Times. That newspaper initially lost but went to the House of Lords. In 1999 the law lords recognised a duty to impart information in the public interest and said that in certain circumstances the defence of qualified privilege could be made, provided that the newspaper met certain journalistic tests as to the nature, tone and source of the reporting and sought to verify what they were publishing.

Mr Justice Eady insisted that had he applied the Reynolds principles but still found himself “quite unable to uphold the privilege defence”. He referred to the “dramatic and condemnatory” character of the articles. He also rejected pleas of fair comment in leader articles about Mr Galloway.

The Telegraph has said that it would apply to the Court of Appeal, seeking to challenge both the ruling on liability and the “excessive” damages award. The days of juries making millionaires of litigants may be over, but these latest damages are at the upper end of the rough scale adhered to by judges.

The presentation of the documents found in Baghdad may have been clumsy, especially in the use of the word “treason”. Nevertheless, both the assumption Reynolds did not provide a defence in this case and the size of the award against the newspaper warrant further examination by a higher court.

In another post-Reynolds case, Loutchansky v Times Newspapers, the Master of the Rolls said it was in the public interest in a democracy that there be “free expression and, more particularly . . . the promotion of a free and vigorous press to keep the public informed”. He was right. The Galloway ruling merits challenge.