Kesha says she "physically cannot" work with the man that she says abused her. The law could have and should have taken this seriously, writes Lucia Osborne-Crowley.

Twenty-eight-year-old pop star Kesha made headlines this week when a New York court dismissed her legal bid for protection against a man who allegedly physically and sexually abused her.

The response was instant worldwide anger, with celebrities from Lorde to Lady Gaga leading the chorus of condemnation on social media.

They have reason to feel angry. The court's decision not to grant Kesha relief from the contract binding her to her alleged abuser might have been legally sound, but it was not inevitable.

The court had an opportunity to set a precedent that would protect victims of abuse, but it failed to take it. By considering the case only on strictly commercial grounds, the court demonstrated its misunderstanding of the nature and consequences of abuse.

The man at the centre of this story is Lucasz "Dr Luke" Gottwald, a producer who discovered Kesha when she was just 17. Shortly after the two met, they entered into a contract stipulating that the singer would produce albums exclusively with Gottald and his Sony Music-owned label Kemosabe Entertainment.

In a legal claim filed in 2014, Kesha alleges that Dr Luke began sexually assaulting her shortly after her 18th birthday. On one occasion, she alleges he sedated her and raped her while she was unconscious.

These proceedings are ongoing and, as the wheels of justice turn slowly, Kesha's lawyers this month filed for a temporary injunction to allow Kesha to produce music outside of her exclusive contract with Dr Luke until the claim had been resolved.

But Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich dismissed the claim, stating that Kesha was bound by the contract and must perform her contractual obligation to produce, exclusively, a further six albums with the record company.

To succeed in requesting such an injunction, Kesha had to prove that she was likely to win the lawsuit and that she would suffer "irreparable harm" if the injunction was denied. Kesha's legal team argued that the star's career would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction were not granted, as she would not be able to produce music and, in the short life span of a young pop star, such a hiatus could be career-ending.

Kesha stated in her motion:

I know I cannot work with Dr Luke. I physically cannot. I don't feel safe in any way.

The judge disagreed. She stated that Kesha had been "given opportunity to record" - that she could, technically, continuing recording music with Sony. This is based on the idea that any damage done to her career as a result of not producing music would be the consequence not of the contract but of a choice she had made. The harm would be self-inflicted and therefore fails the legal test.

This decision reflects the fact that the motion for an injunction was considered on commercial grounds alone, treating Kesha and Dr Luke as two consenting parties to a binding agreement. This approach prioritises the sanctity of commercial associations over the protection of vulnerable parties, and while treating the motion as such is the court's prerogative, it ignores the possibility that the suffering Kesha describes substantially constrained her agency.

Barely eighteen when she entered the contract, Kesha was already a vulnerable party facing an influential producer and a multi-billion dollar corporation. She alleges that she was made more vulnerable still when the man she was contractually bound to abused her physically, sexually and emotionally.

The court had an opportunity to recognise that imbalance, but it chose not to.

Elsewhere in her judgment, Justice Kornreich referred to the lack of medical evidence supporting Kesha's claims. While the strength of the lawsuit is an element of the legal test for granting an injunction, this does not mean that Kesha had to prove the abuse took place in order to win the motion. In fact, by definition she should not have to prove this - the purpose of the injunction is to release her from the contract until the allegations have been properly assessed in a court of law.

Legally speaking, the court's decision was certainly sound. But the circumstances of Kesha's motion were legally unprecedented, meaning Justice Kornreich was not bound to treat the motion in a particular way. There was arguably enough legal flexibility for the court to have granted Kesha the relief she requested.

In assessing the motion, the court had an opportunity to recognise the need to protect victims of abuse, before or until that abuse had been proven by law, but it failed to do so. As a result, the decision establishes a legal precedent to the contrary.

None of this is to say that upholding the law of contract is not important; but arguably this is a case in which the court could have used its legal and remedial discretion to set an important precedent allowing the law to account for the damaging impacts of abuse, and to offer some level of protection for its victims.

In neglecting to do so, the law failed Kesha, as well as other victims whose situation may one day mimic hers.

Lucia Osborne-Crowley is a journalist, writer and university tutor in US politics. She tweets at @LuciaOC_.