Reading through the judgement of the case against Katie Hopkins, it's clear that Hopkins not being present to speak at the court affected her case badly, as she wasn't able to explain her words.
The judge was also dismissive of Hopkin's defense saying that Jack was revelling in the prospect of suing her, and Jack's obvious happiness showed that she wasn't upset. The judge just said that people react differently to upset, so Jack's documented glee didn't matter. The judge also decided that Jack wasn't dishonest in saying that she'd received a "torrent" of abuse, despite a complete lack of evidence of this, and her deleting a lot of evidence. He said that "torrent" was a figure of speech, or something. (ETA - he noted that Jack's carefully curated evidence of the "abuse" she'd allegedly suffered was a selection of messages that were nothing to do with what Hopkins said. To me that is an obvious attempt at manipulation on Jack's part.) He also dismissed Hopkin's team's assertion that there was no evidence that Jack's reputation was actually harmed.
The judge clearly gave Jack the benefit of the doubt a lot. It's regrettable that she won, even against Hopkins. It sets a dangerous precedent for free speech and has made Jack feel invincible.