The Department of Health has failed in a new bid to stop the complete withdrawal of government guidelines on abortion in Northern Ireland.
Its lawyers urged a High Court judge to vary his order so that only two sections on counselling and conscientious objection should be reconsidered.
But Lord Justice Girvan rejected the move, stressing that the whole guidance was misleading as currently issued.
A further direction for the Department to pay the costs of the legal challenge was put on hold pending any potential appeal.
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) brought judicial review proceedings in a bid to win a declaration that the decision to publish the advice was unlawful.
Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland, except in circumstances where the mother's life or mental well being are considered at risk.
SPUC wanted the High Court to declare that what has been produced does not properly set out the law.
Lawyers for the group claimed the guidance also fails to deal with the rights of the unborn child and provides inadequate advice for conscientious objectors within the medical profession.
'Draconian'
The Department of Health's legal representatives rejected allegations it had failed to make clear that abortion was illegal in Northern Ireland apart from in the most exceptional circumstances.
It was also stressed that the document was for health workers rather than the general public.
Although he stopped short of quashing the guidelines, Lord Justice Girvan held two weeks ago that sections on counselling and conscientious objection were unclear.
But his order for the advice to be completely withdrawn has been described as "draconian".
Nicolas Hanna QC, for the Department, expressed concerns that it may lead some to believe the entire document was up for reconsideration.
He added: "It's important to recognise that a challenge has been brought to this guidance, most of which has failed.
"In particular the fundamental challenge to the guidance on the law in Northern Ireland has failed."
David Scoffield, for the Society, responded by contending that there was "a good deal of cross-fertilisation" between the sections criticised and other parts of the guidelines.
"We say it is artificial for the Department to suggest that a number of very small portions of the guidance could simply be excised and the rest of guidance remains utterly unaffected."
© UTV News