Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Example Document: NAME_1 remains on course to win a record-equaling 22nd grand slam title after beating American NAME_2 in straight sets in the Australian Open semifinals Friday, setting up a mouthwatering final with NAME_3. The Serbian faced stiff opposition from the big-hitting NAME_4 in his 7-5 6-1 6-2 victory to reach his 33rd grand slam final. His victory came just hours after Tsitsipas had beaten Russian NAME_5 Khachanov 7-6 (7-2) 6-4 6-7 (6-8) 6-3 to reach his second career grand slam final.

Example Summary 1: NAME_1 will face NAME_3 in the Australian Open final after beating NAME_2 in straight sets.

Options: "Yes" or "No"

Answer: Yes, the summary is factually consistent with the article.



Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document: The former MSP won a defamation case against the now defunct News of The World in 2006. The paper's owner, News Group, wanted that ruling "struck down" following Mr NAME_6's 2010 conviction for perjury. However, the Supreme Court said they had failed to "raise an arguable point of law of general public importance". It follows a case heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year, where News Group attempted to seek permission to have the original trial rerun. That was rejected in November. The company then appealed to the Supreme Court, which has also declined to hea