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

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

The court held that there were triable issues as to the extent of Mr Hilton's control over the website and the content in question, as well as whether he had actual knowledge or should have been aware of the unlawful nature of the material prior to removal. These factual disputes precluded summary judgment, and the Regulation 19 defence could not be determined without a full trial.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 690 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Kaschke; 1st Defendant: Gray; 2nd Defendant: Hilton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (summary Judgment Application) / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Appeal From Master Rose's Refusal of Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment refused.
Legal Topics
Liability of Website Operators, Electronic Commerce (ec Directive) Regulations 2002, Defamation Act 1996, Summary Judgment, Hosting Defence, Actual Knowledge of Unlawful Content
Defamation Internet Law European Union Law Liability of Website Operators Electronic Commerce (ec Directive) Regulations 2002 Defamation Act 1996 Summary Judgment Hosting Defence +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kaschke

Claimant

Gray

1st Defendant

Hilton

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (summary Judgment Application) / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Appeal From Master Rose's Refusal of Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Hilton, as operator of Labourhome.org, is entitled to immunity from liability for defamatory content under Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002
  2. 2 Whether the conditions for immunity under Regulation 19 are satisfied, including lack of actual knowledge and expeditious removal upon notice
  3. 3 Whether the nature of Mr Hilton's control over the website precludes him from relying on the hosting defence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there were triable issues as to the extent of Mr Hilton's control over the website and the content in question, as well as whether he had actual knowledge or should have been aware of the unlawful nature of the material prior to removal. These factual disputes precluded summary judgment, and the Regulation 19 defence could not be determined without a full 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.