B&P Group Pty Ltd v Google LLC (No 2) [2022] FCA 958

B&P Group Pty Ltd v Google LLC (No 2) [2022] FCA 958

The Court was satisfied that the requirements of r 7.22 were met because Accent may have rights to relief in defamation, injurious falsehood and breach of the Australian Consumer Law arising from the Google review; Accent had made reasonable enquiries but could not identify the anonymous reviewer; and Google was likely to have access to documents or data, including Google Account information, that would assist in identifying the reviewer. It was therefore appropriate to order preliminary discovery.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery Pursuant to R 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) Concerning Allegedly Defamatory Online Comments / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Application granted; orders for preliminary discovery made pursuant to r 7.22(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'identification of Anonymous Online Reviewer' 'defamatory Imputations' 'injurious Falsehood' 'unconscionable Conduct']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation' 'australian Consumer Law'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'identification of Anonymous Online Reviewer' 'defamatory Imputations' 'injurious Falsehood' 'unconscionable Conduct']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Preliminary Discovery Pursuant to R 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) Concerning Allegedly Defamatory Online Comments / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prospective applicant may have a right to obtain relief against the anonymous reviewer of the Google Maps review.' 'Whether the prospective applicant was unable to ascertain the description of the prospective respondent despite reasonable enquiries.' 'Whether Google knows or is likely to know, or has or is likely to have control of documents that would help ascertain, the description of the prospective respondent.' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction and the prospective applicant had a prima facie case for preliminary discovery.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the requirements of r 7.22 were met because Accent may have rights to relief in defamation, injurious falsehood and breach of the Australian Consumer Law arising from the Google review; Accent had made reasonable enquiries but could not identify the anonymous reviewer; and Google was likely to have access to documents or data, including Google Account information, that would assist in identifying the reviewer. It was therefore appropriate to order preliminary discovery.

Court Disposition

Application granted; orders for preliminary discovery made pursuant to r 7.22(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Orders

  • ["Google shall provide to the Prospective Applicant's solicitors by email as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 21 days of receiving the Order by certified mail, to the extent available, subscriber registration information including name and address of the Google Account associated with the...