A judge has been hearing final submissions in the £1.5m defamation case brought by a Labour MP against the Mail on Sunday newspaper.

John Mitchell QC, representing the newspaper, said the story which stated that Jimmy Wray had beaten up his wife was "true or substantially true".

Mr Mitchell also told Lord Johnston at the Court of Session in Edinburgh that the amount claimed by Mr Wray in the case was "excessive".

Mr Wray, 64, Labour MP for Glasgow Baillieston, contests his former wife's claims which were published in 1998.

Catherine Wray said her former husband "battered and abused" her while they were married, claiming he punched her, held a knife to her neck and grabbed her by the throat.

Mr Wray is suing Associated Newspapers for defamation over the account of their marriage.

'Credible witness'

Ms Wray, 50, of Milngavie, Glasgow, married ex-boxer Mr Wray in 1985 after he divorced his first wife. They separated in 1995.

Mr Mitchell said Catherine Wray was a "credible and reliable" witness - in contrast to Jimmy Wray who he labelled "unsatisfactory and incredible".

The lawyer suggested that it would be "incredible" for Ms Wray to have invented her story of being beaten, especially in view of medical evidence from injuries she had reported during her marriage.

He reminded the judge that Mr Wray had been described as a "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde character".

"It was an understandable pattern that she had been reluctant to report the cause of her injuries to a GP at an earlier stage of their marriage," he said.

Independent witnesses

"The assertion by the pursuer that his wife was a drunk with a serious alcohol problem was not borne out by his own evidence."

The MP had claimed his wife banged her head on a headboard, but Ms Wray's account was supported by independent witnesses, Mr Mitchell told the court.

Leeona Dorrian, QC for Mr Wray, said although the article had painted a picture of Mr Wray as a habitual wife beater, it had to be proved there had been a series of such acts.

She argued most of the evidence that the newspaper group relied on was not supported and was heavily reliant on Ms Wray's testimony.

"It would be my submission that her credibility is fairly open to question in many respects," she added.

A deferred judgement in the case is expected at a later date.