Would be good if someone offered to represent The Tab pro bono to dispute.
It’s tricky, because the only facts on the table are those resulting from the Warwick inquiry, and Warwick will not and cannot release that. So The Tab story is based on what they hope/think is a leaked copy of the real inquiry, but in principle could be entirely fake, or a contested draft, or otherwise invalid.
Warwick’s only real option to comment on it is “no comment”, or that old intelligence agency standby of “neither confirm nor deny”.
So if someone who relies on a leaked copy ends up in court, they can’t claim it’s fact (because it’s a leaked copy of a report they did not write based on interviews they were not party to, and might indeed be fake anyway) and they can’t compel the original authors to stand behind it (because they didn’t ask for it to be leaked, and they aren’t a party to the court case).
So with enough of a scary lawyer behind them, one of the perpetrators could just stonewall and say “nope, it didn’t happen like that, you are defaming me to say that it did; it’s none of your business what did happen, but this didn’t”.
The Tab would be left trying to prove that their story was true (on civil balance of probabilities) but with no evidence.
Of course, given that the complainants are clearly brave and strong women, and clearly keen to resolve the issue, The Tab could ask them to appear as witnesses. But they presumably have no knowledge of the content of the group other than their recollections of the few items they were shown.
This doesn’t effect what the university does, of course.