Duffy v Google Inc
Case
•
[2011] SADC 178
•15 November 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Duffy v Google Inc [2011] SADC 178
[2011] SADC 178
15 November 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Duffy v Google Inc, Dr Janice Margaret Duffy sought interlocutory injunctive relief against Google Inc and Google Australia Pty Ltd (Google Australia) in relation to certain alleged defamatory material appearing on internet websites owned by Google Inc. The plaintiff applied for injunctive relief in respect of the alleged offending material. Google Australia is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc and does not have control over the publication of the material in question. The court dismissed the application against Google Australia, finding that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s assertion that it had any control over the removal of the offending material.
The court considered the legal issues surrounding the application for injunctive relief, particularly focusing on the balance of convenience. The plaintiff needed to demonstrate that there was a serious question to be tried, that she was likely to suffer injury for which damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court also noted the public interest in free speech, a consideration that must be given particular attention in defamation cases. The plaintiff’s application against Google Inc was dismissed on the balance of convenience, as the court determined that the public interest in free speech outweighed the potential harm to the plaintiff.
The court found that Google Australia had no control over the removal of the alleged defamatory material from the Google Search index, and thus, the application against Google Australia was dismissed. The court emphasised that an injunctive order must be one that can be complied with and that the plaintiff’s assertion of shared control by Google Australia was not supported by the evidence presented.
The court did not make any final orders in the case as the application for injunctive relief against both defendants was dismissed. The plaintiff was, however, free to pursue the defamation proceedings against Google Inc as originally instituted.
The court considered the legal issues surrounding the application for injunctive relief, particularly focusing on the balance of convenience. The plaintiff needed to demonstrate that there was a serious question to be tried, that she was likely to suffer injury for which damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court also noted the public interest in free speech, a consideration that must be given particular attention in defamation cases. The plaintiff’s application against Google Inc was dismissed on the balance of convenience, as the court determined that the public interest in free speech outweighed the potential harm to the plaintiff.
The court found that Google Australia had no control over the removal of the alleged defamatory material from the Google Search index, and thus, the application against Google Australia was dismissed. The court emphasised that an injunctive order must be one that can be complied with and that the plaintiff’s assertion of shared control by Google Australia was not supported by the evidence presented.
The court did not make any final orders in the case as the application for injunctive relief against both defendants was dismissed. The plaintiff was, however, free to pursue the defamation proceedings against Google Inc as originally instituted.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Defamation Law
Legal Concepts
-
Defamation
-
Injunction
-
Interlocutory Injunctions
-
Public Interest
-
Balance of Convenience
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Duffy v Google Inc [2011] SADC 178
Most Recent Citation
Rana v Google Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 60
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Ghosh v Google Australia Pty Ltd
[2013] NSWDC 146
A v Google New Zealand Ltd
[2012] NZHC 2352
Rana v Google Australia Pty Ltd
[2013] FCA 60
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill
[2006] HCA 46