Kaschke v Osler [2010] EWHC 1075 (QB) (13 May 2010)

Kaschke v Osler [2010] EWHC 1075 (QB) (13 May 2010)

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because any marginal damage to the claimant's reputation from the defendant's blog post was insignificant compared to her own prior disclosures, the right of reply had already provided vindication, and any damages would be minimal and disproportionate to the cost and resources involved. The court found no real and substantial tort had been committed, applying the Jameel doctrine. The limitation defence further confined the claim to a negligible period, and certain passages were incapable of being defamatory or were published with the claimant's consent.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1075
Parties
Claimant: Johanna Kaschke; Defendant: David Osler
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Application to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process Prior to Trial
Outcome
Claim struck out as an abuse of process
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Limitation, Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Consent, Accord and Satisfaction
Defamation Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Limitation Freedom of Expression Consent Accord and Satisfaction

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johanna Kaschke

Claimant

David Osler

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Application to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defamation claim should be struck out as an abuse of process under the Jameel doctrine due to minimal actual damage and disproportionate use of court resources
  2. 2 Whether the claim is time-barred under the limitation period for defamation actions
  3. 3 Whether certain passages are incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning or were published with the claimant's consent

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because any marginal damage to the claimant's reputation from the defendant's blog post was insignificant compared to her own prior disclosures, the right of reply had already provided vindication, and any damages would be minimal and disproportionate to the cost and resources involved. The court found no real and substantial tort had been committed, applying the Jameel doctrine. The limitation defence further confined the claim to a negligible period, and certain passages were incapable of being defamatory or were published with the claimant's consent.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as an abuse of process

Orders

  • Claim struck out as an abuse of process under the Jameel doctrine
  • No need to serve amended defence