It's a very long judgement, I've just scanned through it quickly. It mostly seems to address claims that the original judge was wrong in fact or in law, and dismisses them all.
When you have a law that says a man is a woman, saying that a man is a man is always going to be dodgy.
Ground 4 in the Dennis summons is as follows:
“Further, her Honour erred in fact and/or law at paragraphs [59] and [60] in holding that the Plaintiff in referring to the First Defendant as a ‘man’ or ‘male’ was vilification, in circumstances that the First Defendant is in fact a biological male.”
[my italics - the above is from the appeal, the following is the ruling:]
This ground misconceives the purpose of the two impugned paragraphs of her Honour’s judgment. Her Honour had already at DLJ [33]-[60] explained why the social media posts were capable of vilification. It was in my view sufficiently clear from those paragraphs that the vilification found proved was on the basis that Ms Dennis is a transgender woman. All her Honour was doing at DLJ [59]-[60] was confirming that the basis of the vilification was Ms Dennis’ transgender status, rather than her race, age or sexuality, for example. There is no basis for granting leave in relation to ground 4 in the Dennis summons, and it is refused.
When you have a law that says that stating the biological fact that a TW is male is 'vilification' of a transgender person, you're in trouble.
'Ms Dennis' was not randomly singled out for 'vilification' because of his transgender status, but because he is a biological male taking part in women's sport, but that' clearly doesn't matter, his feeling were hurt and that's what the entire might of the legal system must rally around..