Kaschke v Gray & Anor [2010] EWHC 690 (QB) (29 March 2010)

Kaschke v Gray & Anor [2010] EWHC 690 (QB) (29 March 2010)

There are triable issues as to the extent of Mr Hilton's control over the website, his knowledge of the allegedly defamatory content, and whether he acted expeditiously upon notification. These factual disputes preclude summary judgment under Regulation 19, and the matter must proceed to trial.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 690
Parties
Claimant: Kaschke; 1st Defendant: Gray; 2nd Defendant: Hilton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment refused
Legal Topics
Liability of Website Operators, Defamation on the Internet, Electronic Commerce (ec Directive) Regulations 2002, Summary Judgment Procedure, Hosting Defence Under Regulation 19
Defamation Internet Law European Union Law Liability of Website Operators Defamation on the Internet Electronic Commerce (ec Directive) Regulations 2002 Summary Judgment Procedure Hosting Defence Under Regulation 19

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kaschke

Claimant

Gray

1st Defendant

Hilton

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the operator of a website (Mr Hilton) is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of the hosting defence under Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 in a defamation claim.
  2. 2 Whether there is a realistic prospect that the claimant could defeat the Regulation 19 defence at trial.

Ratio Decidendi

There are triable issues as to the extent of Mr Hilton's control over the website, his knowledge of the allegedly defamatory content, and whether he acted expeditiously upon notification. These factual disputes preclude summary judgment under Regulation 19, and the matter must proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment refused

Orders

  • The application for summary judgment by Mr Hilton is refused.
  • The claim proceeds to trial on the Regulation 19 defence.