Former Conservative Party leader Colin Craig is appealing a High Court decision that found he defamed his former press secretary over claims of sexual harassment.
Craig's cases have been going through the courts for several years, and stemmed from Rachel MacGregor's assertion Craig sexually harassed her when they worked together on his 2014 election campaign.
In the case currently before the court, High Court Justice Anne Hinton said in her September 19 judgment that Craig and MacGregor sued each other.
"Broadly, Ms MacGregor sues Mr Craig for suggesting she made false claims he sexually harassed her, that she was a liar, that she had acted inappropriately, and that she had no capability to manage her finances," the judge said.
"Mr Craig sues Ms MacGregor for suggesting he sexually harassed her, that he was a bad employer, that he had lied, and that he had been abusive to other women.
"Broadly put, the court holds that Mr Craig did sexually harass Ms MacGregor, that he did suggest she was a liar, and that he lied when he suggested the claims were false.
"But the court also finds that Mr Craig was not a bad employer, at least in the ways suggested, and that he had not been abusive to other women in he ways suggested.
"The court finds it was at least substantially true that Ms MacGregor had no capability to manage her finances at the relevant time. In the result, both parties have succeeded in some of their claims, but failed in others."
In the Court of Appeal today, Craig's lawyer Stephen Mills QC said Justice Hinton had erred by setting aside Craig's qualified privilege.
Defences to his defamatory statements included his honest belief in what he was saying, and the fact he had a right of reply to an attack on himself.
But the judge found he lost his privilege by going too far in his reply.
Mills said Craig was "clearly entitled" to defend himself by saying that he had never sexually harassed anyone and that the allegations were false, and that a finding that he lost his privilege by making that statement was "incorrect" of the court.
He said it was a "complete misunderstanding" of the principle around the improper use of privilege.
Limiting his ability to challenge the allegations due to MacGregor's indirect involvement meant he could not exercise his full right of reply.
Mills also challenged the finding that Craig had sexually harassed MacGregor, but the argument was shut down by Justice Stephen Kos.
"You cannot have a party coming back and trying to re-argue the question of sexual harassment. It becomes harassment itself," he said.
"I think we've reached our conclusion on this... unless you can point to anything else that's really fundamentally different."
MacGregor's lawyer Hayden Wilson said the fundamental aspect of the case was determining what the extent of Craig's privilege was "when what is being inflicted is collateral damage on a person who is not the attacker".
"He released a media storm, so our submission very much was, he went too far."
If Craig had said he did not sexually harass MacGregor, and left it at that, it would be hard to say he had improperly used his privilege, Wilson said.
When he went on to say the allegations of sexual harassment were untrue, was when he overstepped, he said.
The court has reserved its decision.