Kaschke v Osler: QBD 13 May 2010

The claimant sued in defamation as regards the defendant’s comments in his internet blog on her historical left wing political connections. She complained that they made a connection with terrorist activities. The defendant said that the article was based upon material from the claimant’s own web-site, which republished an old article from a German magazine which made a connection. The defendant also pleaded that the claim had been compromised by a reply from the claimant published on his site. The claimant had received compensation after her wrongful arrests at the time.
Held: This was one of the small number of cases where the action should be stopped as an abuse because any likely vindication would be at disproportionate cost.
Also the claimant had been aware for a few years of the articles without taking action. The article had since become findable only on specific articles of the archives, and had been ‘unpublished’ by the defendant. It was for the claimant to demonstrate some publication within the limitation period. She had not done so.

Eady J
[2010] EWHC 1075 (QB)
England and Wales
CitedCharleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 31-Mar-1995
The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual . .
CitedLonzim Plc and Others v Sprague QBD 11-Nov-2009
The court asked whether any damages recovered by the claimant might be so small as to be totally disproportionate to the very high costs that any libel action involves.
Held: Tugendhat J said: ‘It is not enough for a claimant to say that a . .
CitedAl Amoudi v Brisard and Another QBD 12-May-2006
In the context of allegations of Internet publication there is no presumption that the words published were actually read, and no presumption that a reader who has read one article on a blog will have read all the other articles. The burden is on . .
AppliedDow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .

Cited by:
See AlsoKaschke v Gray and Another QBD 23-Jul-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendants had published a web page which falsely associated her with a terrorist gang in the 1970s. The defendants now sought a strike out of her claim as an abuse saying that a similar . .
CitedMcGrath and Another v Dawkins and Others CA 5-Feb-2013
The claimant appealed against a finding that the defendant Amazon was bound to succeed in its defence under the 2002 Regulations against the claim in defamation, and that the claim should be dismissed as an abuse of process under Jameel. He had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.414970