Legal Research
Cases
Defteros v Google Inc

Defteros v Google Inc

Case [2017] VSC 158 4 April 2017

Summary Judgment

Defamation

Pleadings

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Not Restricted

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

S CI 2016 04954

GEORGE DEFTEROS	Plaintiff
v
GOOGLE INC LLC	First Defendant
GOOGLE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	JOHN DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 MARCH 2017
DATE OF RULING:	4 APRIL 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DEFTEROS v GOOGLE INC and ANOR
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 158

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary judgment application – Whether causes of action pleaded against second defendant have any real prospect of success – Defamation proceeding – Pleadings – Whether defendant ‘publisher’ of any of the matters complained of – Insufficient connection with publication shown – No reasonable prospects of success – Application allowed – Civil Procedure Act 2010, s 63, Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 23.01.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr E J Batrouney	Defteros Lawyers
For the Defendants	Ms W A Harris QC with Ms L De Ferrari	Johnson Winter & Slattery

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Mr George Defteros, claims damages for defamation against Google Inc and Google Australia Pty Ltd in relation to the alleged publication of search results pages by Google Inc’s internet search engine.[1] The second defendant, Google Australia Pty Ltd (Google Australia), applied for summary dismissal of the claims against it.
[1]The plaintiff has foreshadowed an application to amend his pleading to refer to ‘Google Inc’ as the first defendant, having become aware that ‘Google Inc LLC’ is not the correct name of the corporate entity in question.

The allegedly defamatory publications are defined as two web pages. The first publication is a reproduction of the first page of the search results displayed by the Google search engine in response to the search term ‘George Defteros’ when that search was performed on 22 November 2016. The second publication is an article dated 18 June 2004 entitled ‘Underworld loses valuable friend at court’ and making reference to the plaintiff that was displayed by following the link provided in the search results. These two web pages are defined by the plaintiff’s statement of claim as ‘the Web Matter’.

The key issue on this application was whether the plaintiff’s claim that Google Australia is a publisher of the Web Matter is one which has a real prospect of success.

For the reasons that follow, Google Australia is entitled to summary dismissal.

The pleadings

The plaintiff relied on the statement of claim as filed for the application. The plaintiff’s pleaded claim against the first defendant, Google Inc, as owner and operator of the Google search engine and associated websites, was not put in issue. As the Court of Appeal has recently confirmed in Google Inc v Trkulja,[2] that Google Inc may be held liable as a publisher of search results on its websites,[3] that claim is not fanciful.
[2][2016] VSCA 333.
[3]Ibid, [348]-[349], [352]-[353], [357]. Earlier cases have established that Google INC can be liable as…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Defteros v Google Inc

Details

AGLC: Defteros v Google Inc [2017] VSC 158
Case: [2017] VSC 158
Decision Date: 4 APRIL 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Defteros v Google Inc, the plaintiff, Mr Defteros, brought proceedings against two defendants for defamation. The primary defendant was the author of the allegedly defamatory content, while the second defendant, Google Inc, was the operator of the platform on which the content was published. The plaintiff sought summary judgment against Google Inc on the grounds that it was the publisher of the defamatory material. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the plaintiff had any real prospect of success against Google Inc in its capacity as the publisher of the defamatory content. The court needed to determine whether Google Inc was indeed the publisher of the material and whether there was a sufficient connection between Google Inc and the publication of the content to make the plaintiff’s claims against it plausible. The court also needed to consider whether there were any genuine issues to be tried in relation to these claims.

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any real prospect of success against Google Inc. It was determined that Google Inc did not act as the publisher of the defamatory content, as the primary defendant was the actual publisher. Furthermore, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish a meaningful connection between Google Inc and the publication of the content. The plaintiff’s claims against Google Inc were deemed to lack substance and were dismissed. The court concluded that there were no genuine issues to be tried, and the application for summary judgment was allowed under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.

The final orders of the court were that Google Inc be and was dismissed from the proceedings with no order as to costs. This decision highlights the importance of establishing a direct connection between a platform operator and the publication of content in defamation cases, and the need for plaintiffs to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.

Orders