Laurence Fox faces a wait to find out whether his appeal over social media posts where he referred to two people as paedophiles has been successful.
The actor-turned-activist was successfully sued by now-Stonewall chief executive Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal over a row on Twitter, now known as X.
Mr Fox, 47, called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, "paedophiles", in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020.
Mr Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called "a racist" by the men, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the "paedophile" tweets which led to the libel claims.
In two judgments in 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, and said Mr Fox should pay them £90,000 each in damages.
The judge dismissed Mr Fox's counter claims against them and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism.
He is now challenging the rulings at the Court of Appeal in London, and his lawyers told the hearing that the previous judge's decisions were "plainly wrong".
At the end of the hearing's second day on Tuesday, judge Lord Justice Dingemans said the decision on Mr Fox's appeal would be given in writing at a later date.
Lord Justice Dingemans, sitting with Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby, said: "It won't particularly surprise you to know that we won't give judgment this afternoon, we will reserve matters."
He added: "Thank you all very much indeed, we will try to give you a judgment as soon as we can."
During the appeal, Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the men should be quashed because of "errors of approach" by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm.
The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the men, who, with Ms Thorp, are opposing the appeal.
He said that in one of her rulings the judge "ignores the actual words used, or their all-important context".
Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox's appeal was "lacking in merit".
She later said: "Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant's tweets, for the reasons which she gave.
"There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law.
"After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts."
