Granting Ds summary judgment:
(1) Cs had no real prospect of resisting the application of duty/interest qualified privilege. Ds were under a duty to publish the reasons for excluding the Cs from the Mosque. The great mass of right-minded or right-thinking people would believe that those responsible for running this Mosque were under a duty to explain to the congregation why they were taking this somewhat draconian action. There was reciprocity of interest in relation to the proper running of the Mosque and the exclusion decision. The congregation had an interest in knowing why the decision was being made, and the Trustees had a corresponding duty to explain it. It was plain from the minutes of the relevant meetings that the publications complained of were made in the context of the expulsion decision, and no other.
(2) Reply to attack privilege was also bound to succeed. Ds clearly believed that answers needed to be given to Cs’ public defamatory attacks upon them, and the publications complained of were made in that context. Part of Cs’ attack was that Ds had no legitimate basis for excluding them, so the explanation of their reasons for exclusion was within the scope of the reply to that attack. Cs were not genuinely acting in anticipation of any public attack on them (and even if they had been this would not have removed the privilege from Ds replies to the public attacks upon them).
(3) Cs did not have a real prospect of establishing malice. The case in respect of knowledge of falsity was limited. 2 of the 3 particulars related to an earlier letter rather than the publications complained of, and the contention that Ds must have known that these allegations were baseless was bare assertion which was very difficult to sustain. The remaining point, that particular matters were not raised at 2 particular meetings, did not support the necessary inference of dishonesty.
As to dominant improper motive, this species of malice was close to extinction; the contemporaneous documents indicate that the Ds believed that they had a solid basis for expelling the Cs, and Cs had not put in evidence to dispute that; the tone of Ds’ publications’ were measured and balanced (in contrast to the vituperative tone of the Cs’ public statements); Cs had no documentary evidence at all to support their alleged improper motive; and ultimately there was no basis for asserting that Ds’ explanation of their reasons for the exclusion were a smokescreen for any others.
Cs contention that Ward v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 2)  EWHC 641 (QB) changed the legal landscape or meant that summary judgment should not be granted in respect of malice was rejected.