I thought it sounded difficult, too; but having read the blog piece by Kavanagh I'm now not so sure. That's a strong outline argument.
There's a lot of identifying information in the PN article pointing directly to Julie B. She's demonstrated that likely readers did indeed identify her from it. And she's demonstrated negligence and malice, I think, in the reporting.
The fact that PN haven't taken it down after they knew the linkage was being made isn't a good look, either.
Is today's preliminary hearing to decide if it's a reasonable assertion that the article was indeed about her?