District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ghosh v Google Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 146 Hearing dates: 16 August 2013; further submissions 19 August 2013 Decision date: 20 August 2013 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Plaintiff's claim against the first defendant, Google Australia Pty Ltd, is struck out and dismissed pursuant to UCPR r 13.4.
(2) The plaintiff pay Google Australia Pty Ltd's costs of the proceedings.
(3) The plaintiff have leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim, such amendments to include deleting any claim against Google Australia Pty Ltd, by 20 September 2013.
(4) The amended statement of claim must be personally served on each of the defendants named therein, together with a copy of this judgment.
(5) These proceedings stood over for directions to the District Court (Newcastle) on 10 October 2013 for consideration of any application that these proceedings should travel together with proceedings number 2013/88183.
Catchwords: TORT - defamation - publications on internet - application for summary dismissal of the claim by Google Australia Pty Ltd for - whether local subsidiary company can be considered as the publisher of material on websites published by a foreign holding company - principles concerning liability as publisher - proceedings summarily dismissed. Legislation Cited: Local Court Act 1982 (NSW), s 33(1)(b)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 10.20(2)(a), 13.4Cases Cited: A v Google New Zealand [2012] NZHC 2352
Duffy v Google Inc [2011] SADC 178
McKeogh v John Doe 1 & Ors [2012] IEHC 95
Metropolitan Schools Ltd (t/as Skillstrain and/or Train2game) v Designtechnica Corporation (t/as Design Trends), Google UK and Google Inc [2009] EWHC 1765
MX v Google Inc, Eric S, Google France (Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance, decision of 8 September 2010)
Rana v Google Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 60
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd (2012) 286 ALR 466
Sadiq v Baycorp (NZ) Ltd [2008] NZHC 403
Tamiz v Google Inc and Google UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 449
Trkjula v Google Inc (No 2) [2010] VSC 490
Trkjula v Google Inc (No 5) [2012] VSC 533Texts Cited: - Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Plaintiff: Dr Ratna Ghosh
First Defendant: Google Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 102 417 032)
Second Defendant: Rodney Miller
Third Defendant: Everinghammiller.com
Fourth Defendant: Marilyn Bee
Fifth Defendant: Michael Ryan
Sixth Defendant: John Bee
Seventh Defendant: Adam Josef Schuch
Eighth Defendant: Karen SchuchRepresentation: Plaintiff: Dr R Ghosh (in person)
Defendants: Ms L Brown
Plaintiff: Dr R Ghosh (in person)
Defendants: Ashurst Australia Lawyers
File Number(s): 2013/238215 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
This is an application by Google Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 102 417 032) ("Google Australia") for summary dismissal of defamation proceedings commenced against it by the plaintiff for the publication of three blogs:
(a) "holidayhousefromhell.blogspot.com" ( listid="123" listlevel="2" liststring="(b)" listvalue="2">(b) "Where NOT to go: Never again. HORRIBLE HOLIDAYS ON THE GOLD COAST, BUNDALL GOLD COAST" ( and,
(c) "A Current Affair's Naked Neighbours Video of November 2011" ( type="1">
The application for summary…
Continue reading Ghosh v Google Australia Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ghosh v Google Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 146
- Case
- [2013] NSWDC 146
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue in the case was whether Google Australia Pty Ltd could be considered the publisher of content hosted on websites managed by a foreign entity. The court had to determine the principles that govern liability for defamation when the content is published by a subsidiary of an international company. The plaintiff argued that Google Australia Pty Ltd should be held responsible as it was the entity that provided the platform for the defamatory content and benefited from it.
The court held that Google Australia Pty Ltd could not be held liable as the publisher of the defamatory content. The reasoning was based on the fact that the actual publication of the content was conducted by a foreign entity, and Google Australia Pty Ltd did not have editorial control over the content. The court found that the plaintiff's claim against Google Australia Pty Ltd was not sustainable under the principles of defamation law, and thus, the proceedings were summarily dismissed. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the statement of claim by excluding any claims against Google Australia Pty Ltd and serve the amended statement of claim by a specified date. The proceedings were then stood over for further consideration in the District Court.
In summary, the court dismissed the defamation claim against Google Australia Pty Ltd, finding that it could not be held liable as the publisher of the defamatory content. The plaintiff was ordered to amend the statement of claim and pay the defendant's costs. The proceedings were stayed pending further consideration in the District Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Plaintiff's claim against the first defendant, Google Australia Pty Ltd, is struck out and dismissed pursuant to UCPR r 13.4.
(2) The plaintiff pay Google Australia Pty Ltd's costs of the proceedings.
(3) The plaintiff have leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim, such amendments to include deleting any claim against Google Australia Pty Ltd, by 20 September 2013.
(4) The amended statement of claim must be personally served on each of the defendants named therein, together with a copy of this judgment.
(5) These proceedings stood over for directions to the District Court (Newcastle) on 10 October 2013 for consideration of any application that these proceedings should travel together with proceedings number 2013/88183.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.