*journalist hat on*
Can someone explain the situation that led up to the court case? While it may be true that the "psychic" is running a scam, the thing that I'm getting here is that she may have sued for false allegations of how she ran her scam, not that she ran a scam in the first place. As far as I know, if she has a disclaimer of some sort, whether it be a waiver or otherwise, she isn't doing anything wrong in the eyes of the law. Even if she's running a scam (which, frankly, she is due to the mere nature of supposed psychics), if the "victims" waive their right to sue, she isn't breaking any laws.
The issue comes into what the allegations The Daily Mail put forth. Though I can't speak for UK libel laws, we can probably assume that she has her audiences sign waivers, which would allow her to put on her scam (and it is sad in and of itself that people would still fall for a psychic if she needs a damn waiver out of you). If The Daily Mail reported the wrong way that she did things, she has a case, as stupid as it may be. If they're simply reporting that she runs a scam, then I have no idea how the case wasn't dismissed immediately because of how completely absurd it is. And if things are exactly as The Daily Mail said, then she should have lost, which may mean issues with UK libel laws that I'm not aware of. After all, it isn't libel if its true.
That said, I can't imagine that there isn't any real libel done by The Daily Mail as they are, you know, The Daily Mail.