Kaschke v Gray and Another: QBD 29 Mar 2010

The defendant appealed against the refusal of the Master to strike out the claim in defamation in respect of a post by a third party on his unmoderated blog. The claimant said that the article accused her of an historic association with a terrorist group. As soon as the complaint was made known to him, the post was removed, and a right of reply was offered. The court considered the defence under regulation 19 of the Regulations, and in particuar what was meant by an ‘information society service’.
Held: It was arguable that the regulation 19 defence would fail and the claim should not be struck out. If the relevant information society service was the website as a whole or the homepage it would not fall within the definition of consisting only of the storage of information. Accordingly Regulation 19 immunity would not be available . . Similarly if the relevant information society service was the hosting of all blogs posted on web pages made available . . it again seems . . arguable that that also would not fall within the definition of consisting only of the storage of information. The fact that Mr Hilton on a few occasions removed blog posts on grounds of bad language, political provocation or offensiveness falling short of defamation . . makes it at least arguable that the service provided in respect of those individual blog posts and also in respect of the general service consisting of making available webpages on his website for such blogs to be posted consisted of more than mere storage.’

Stadlen J
[2010] EWHC 690 (QB), [2011] 1 WLR 452
Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No 2013) 19, Defamation Act 1996 1, EC Directive 2000/31/EC
England and Wales
CitedBunt v Tilley and others QBD 10-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had . .
CitedKarim v Newsquest Media Group Ltd QBD 27-Oct-2009
The defendant sought a strike out of the claim in defamation, saying that postings made on its web-sites were fair and accurate reports of court proceedings published contemporaneously. The claimant solicitor had been the subject of disciplinary . .
CitedThree Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
CitedSwain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .

Cited by:
CitedTamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd QBD 2-Mar-2012
The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant company offering internet search facilities. The words complained of had been published in a blog, and in comments published on the blog.
Held: Jurisdiction should be declined. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Human Rights

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.406647