THE Labour Party will refuse to pay any more of Kezia Dugdale's legal bills in her court battle against Wings Over Scotland, according to the Huffington Post.

Stuart Campbell, author of the pro-independence site, has taken legal action against the former Scottish Labour leader – accusing her of "defamatory innuendo".

READ MORE: Sheriff says 'facts must be heard' in Wings defamation case against Dugdale

The case relates a Daily Record column by Dugdale, written last March, in which she alleged that one of his tweets was “homophobic”.

A sheriff last week rejected her attempts to have the case thrown out, meaning she would face a court battle next year – although Wings tweeted that Dugdale had filed a last-minute appeal against the decision. 

The Labour party have so far bankrolled Dugdale's defence to the tune of around £90,000.

That stance is set to change, with it now being reported that general secretary Jennie Formby will refuse to allocate any more party funds.

There are said to be conflicting opinions within the party on whether the money would be better spent on campaigning, amid the threat of a snap election next year.

A spokesman for Dugdale told the Huffington Post: “Given the principles on which it was founded – equality, fairness and justice - the UK Labour Party wholeheartedly committed to paying all legal costs associated with this case from start to finish.

“It is very much hoped that all promises will be kept.”

A UK Labour party spokesman refused to comment.

Earlier this month Sheriff McGowan ruled that while Dugdale had not explicitly accused Campbell of being a homophobe, the pursuer’s case that the innuendo could be drawn from the words used must be heard.

Campbell’s tweet read: “Oliver Mundell is the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner.”

Dugdale’s “fair and honest comment” defence included bizarre comparisons being made to other possible tweets.

It argued: "If, as the pursuer claimed, his intent in publishing the Tweet, was to highlight his view that Oliver Mundell was an appalling public speaker and that 'had Oliver Mundell not been born, the pursuer would not have to listen to his speech' he could have said this in so many different equally caustic ways without referencing his father’s sexuality, e.g. by expressing regret that the speaker’s mother did not abort him when carrying him, or that his father had not undergone a vasectomy or his mother a hysterectomy before the speaker was conceived. Instead he chose to reference the sexuality of the speaker’s father because he thought that was funny, suitable as something to be laughed at or about."

In a written judgment, the Sheriff explained: “I am not saying that the defender defamed the pursuer. I am simply saying that as a matter of law, the words used may carry the defamatory meaning complained of by the pursuer.

“Accordingly, on this issue the pursuer is entitled to an evidential hearing to establish the facts. It will be a matter for whoever hears the evidence to determine whether the words used did as a matter of fact bear that defamatory meaning, taking account of the circumstances and the other lines of defence taken.”