A libel case brought in an American court by a woman who claimed she was defamed and demanded 800,000 dollars in damages over being named in a spoof interview by "Ali G" has been thrown out by a judge.

The case, handed by Channel 4's US law firm, SmithDehn LLP, is notable because much of the legal work involved was outsourced to be handled by SmithDehn's Indian arm, SDD Global Solutions, which helped make it economical to fight the case and mount a robust defence.

It is understood that the outsourcing move reduced Channel's 4's costs by about 50%.

The woman - she sued as "Jane Doe" but has been named in a number of reports and on the Internet as British-born Heddi Cundle - claimed that comedian Sacha Baron Cohen used her name in an interview he conducted as the Ali G character with historian and writer Gore Vidal.

In the interview, Ali G asked Mr Vidal why there was any point in amending the US Constitution, then went on to say that he had a girlfriend, whom he named as the plaintiff, who was constantly "amending herself" but to no avail.

But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Terry Friedman dismissed the case, saying in his decision: "No reasonable person could consider the statements made by Ali G on the program to be factual.

"To the contrary, it is obvious that the Ali G character is absurd, and all his statements are gibberish and intended as comedy.

"The actor, Sacha Baron Cohen, never strays from the Ali G character, who is dressed in a ridiculous outfit and speaks in the exaggerated manner of a rap artist.

"Ali G's statements are similarly absurd. For example, prior to the reference to Plaintiff, while 'interviewing' the author Gore Vidal, Ali G refers to the Constitution of the United States as having been written on two tablets, clearly intended to confuse the Constitution with the Ten Commandments.

"Altogether, the program is obviously a spoof of a serious interview program. No reasonable person could think otherwise."

Prash Naik, controller of legal and compliance at Channel 4, said: "This is an important ruling for Channel 4 and sends out a clear signal that we will not hesitate to fight unmeritorious claims of this nature.''

The programme at the centre of the case has been the subject of previous litigation, all of which was settled out of court.

The series -entitled Ali G in Da USAiii in Britain - was produced by HBO and broadcast in the US.

Channel 4 took a UK licence and international sales outside the US.

"Jane Doe" first sued HBO and Sacha Baron Cohen over the original US broadcast which referred to her - and the claim was settled out of court.

She launched a second claim after HBO accidentally circulated the sequence on DVD in the US. The case was settled out of court.

Channel 4 was placed on notice of the original claim in the US in 2004 and assured Jane Doe's lawyer that her name would be removed from all programmes distributed internationally.

But due to an error, unedited copies were distributed to Finland. Jane Doe discovered this in 2007 when an unauthorised clip appeared on YouTube. She launched a third libel claim HBO and Sacha Baron Cohen - but Channel 4 agreed to be substituted for the parties as its mistake had caused the distribution of the material.

Channel 4 failed in an attempt at a preliminary hearing last year to persuade the Judge to dismiss the case, and was forced to go through to a summary judgment.

Mr Naik said the decision to outsource work on the case to SDD Global Solutions was a creative solution to running a robust defence.

He went on: "US court actions are extremely costly to run and even where a defendant wins, little if any of their costs are recoverable from the plaintiff. "As so often happens in cases like this, the 'chilling effect' of the threat of substantial damages and significant legal costs, forces defendants to settle with plaintiffs who have no justifiable claim.

"But combining the skills and expertise of US attorneys with US law-trained Indian attorneys has proved to be an innovative and cost-effective way for Channel 4 to fight and win the suit."

Sanjay Bhatia, SDD Global's Head of Operations, said: "This is a case where outsourcing created more work in the US, rather than less. Because our team made the defence affordable, US lawyers were able to do the things in the US that they do best there, such as strategizing, supervising, editing, and appearing in court.

"The implications of this case are huge. With legal outsourcing, baseless lawsuits can be defeated on their merits, instead of settled simply out of fear of legal fees."

A report of the case on the Deadlinehollywooddaily.com website quoted an un-named defence lawyer as saying after the decision: "As so often happens in cases like this, the 'chilling effect' of the threat of substantial damages and significant legal costs, forces defendants to settle with plaintiffs who have no justifiable claim.

"However combining the skills and expertise of US attorneys with US law-trained Indian attorneys has proved to be an innovative and cost-effective way to fight and win the suit."