Kaschke v Osler

Kaschke v Osler

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because any marginal reputational harm caused by the defendant's publication was insignificant compared to the claimant's own prior disclosures and the right of reply. Any damages would be minimal and disproportionate to the cost and resources required for a trial. The court also found that limitation would bar most of the claim and that some passages were not defamatory or were published with the claimant's consent.

Parties
Claimant: Johanna Kaschke; Defendant: David Osler
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Application to Strike Out for Abuse of Process and Limitation
Outcome
Claim struck out as an abuse of process
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Limitation Periods, Defamation Libel, Freedom of Expression, Consent, Accord and Satisfaction
Defamation Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Limitation Periods Defamation Libel 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johanna Kaschke

Claimant

David Osler

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Application to Strike Out for Abuse of Process and Limitation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defamation claim should be struck out as an abuse of process under the Jameel doctrine
  2. 2 Whether the claim is statute-barred by limitation
  3. 3 Whether certain passages are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because any marginal reputational harm caused by the defendant's publication was insignificant compared to the claimant's own prior disclosures and the right of reply. Any damages would be minimal and disproportionate to the cost and resources required for a trial. The court also found that limitation would bar most of the claim and that some passages were not defamatory or were published with the claimant's consent.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as an abuse of process

Orders

  • Claim dismissed as an abuse of process
  • No need to serve amended defence