“In my view, there are no compelling reasons to allow the claim to proceed to trial,” wrote Steyn in her order. “In reality, the Claimant is seeking court findings to vindicate his reputation in circumstances where [he] has not been able to formulate any viable remedy which he would have a real prospect of obtaining,” she added, referring to Trump.

Trump attempted to amend his complaint against Orbis by challenging them under the country’s General Data Protection Regulations, which protect individuals’ digital privacy rights. Due to legal technicalities regarding the delivery of the amended complaint, it was denied by the court, which, upon ruling on an original claim, led to its dismissal.

The suit was also ruled invalid under the law’s statute of limitations regarding personal data claims, which is six years from the date of the alleged act. The Steele Dossier was prepared on Sept. 14, 2016, and was first published by BuzzFeed News on Jan. 10, 2017, ten days before Trump assumed office as president.

[Interesting, especially in light of the permissive defamation/libel laws in the UK. It sounds as though the court thinks that Trump’s reputation is beyond saving, regardless of the dossier. But Trump should have filed for relief immediately after leaving office, too. How did his attorneys miss the statute of limitation? — Ed]