The latest stage of the women's legal action against the police is due to be heard next Thursday and Friday in the High Court.
It has been a long, drawn-out business so far.
The women initiated their legal action in 2011 - and it has yet to reach the main trial. The case has so far been bogged down in a series of preliminary, legal hearings.
The police have attempted to have the case thrown out and sent to a secretive court (see here and here, for more background).
The women (see here and here) have characterised these legal manoeuvres as obstructive "delaying tactics".
The latest hearing will centre on the police's use of a defence they call "neither confirm nor deny". The police argue that they have a policy of being unable to confirm nor deny whether a particular individual has been an undercover officer.
This means, the police say, that they are unable to put up a defence to the women's legal action and are prevented from having a fair trial, and therefore, the case should be dismissed.
On June 5 and 6, lawyers for the women will be challenging the validity of this defence, arguing that it is being used by the Metropolitan Police "as a cover to hide serious wrongdoing" (as this here explains in more detail).
Harriet Wistrich, solicitor for the women, said: "We are making an application that the police must file a proper defence, in accordance with the civil procedure rules by which the defendant has to admit, not admit or deny each and every fact that you assert. To simply assert a policy of 'neither confirm nor deny' is not complying with the requirements of the civil procedure rules."
She added :"If the court finds in our favour, then the police will have to disclose relevant documents in their possession and properly plead their defence by responding to each of the factual matters pleaded in the claim. This means the police will be required to answer questions rather than hide behind the supposed ongoing need for secrecy. "
So far the case has been full of tortuous legal argument. But what this is really all about should not be forgotten - how undercover police officers deceived and betrayed women they had formed long-term relationships with for many years. Read this here, here and here for a reminder of how the women have been left devastated by the men's behaviour.
If ever this case comes to trial properly, the women will be able to tell their stories in open court, and the conduct of the spies and their superiors will be examined in great detail. And that's an embarrassing prospect that police chiefs seem to wish to avoid.
