Pearson said the police statement and Hirst’s comments were all defamatory, while the opposing parties have been defending the claims.
At a High Court hearing in March, Mr Justice Chamberlain was asked to consider the “natural and ordinary meaning” of the statements.
He said in a preliminary judgment on Friday that part of the Essex Police statement could be defamatory because it may have implied guilt on Pearson’s behalf.
In it, the force said officers went to a house to arrange an interview after “a complaint of a possible criminal offence”.
Lorna Skinner, for Pearson, said they would have seen the post online prior to their visit and concluded there were grounds to suspect the columnist had committed a crime.
She argued that by requesting Pearson attend an interview, police inquiries had progressed beyond being preliminary.
The judge said questions of whether the statements, which did not name Ms Pearson, would have been understood as referring to her would also have to be decided at trial.
