Zander's remarks are not strange at all.

Hedley is right of course to say (a) that the judgment would first have to be set aside, (b) collateral attack would not be permitted and (c) additional losses are only claimable in tort.

But as for the right to recover damages and costs paid, Hedley is wrong to dismiss unjust enrichment as the cause of action. If the judgment is set aside, what are the parties rights then? The answer is that The Daily Star has a claim in unjust enrichment - the specific unjust factor probably being that payment was made under what has turned out to be illegitimate pressure. See Charles Mitchell's input for the authorities. It is not much help saying that if the judgment is set aside "then obviously the money is recoverable". The question is WHY is it recoverable?