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_1'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 hear the case, meaning the Edinburgh judgement stands. In a statement, the court said: "The Court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance, which ought to be considered at this time, bearing in mind that the case

Summary: 1. The newspaper's owner News Group, wanted the decision "overturned" following Mr. NAME_1's 2006 conviction perjury.

Options: "Yes" or "No"

Answer:

 Provide your response in exactly 6 paragraphs (separated nearby paragraphs with 3 aterisk symbols ***).
user