Miller v Overseas Newspaper [2017] NSWSC 1350

Miller v Overseas Newspaper [2017] NSWSC 1350

The court was satisfied to grant the relief sought because the plaintiff demonstrated a strong prima facie case of defamation, provided sworn evidence as to the falsity of the allegations, the publisher defendants did not dispute the application or the truth of the allegations, and the alleged publications caused serious reputational harm justifying urgent interlocutory restraint.

Parties
Plaintiff: Gary Miller (a pseudonym); First Defendant: Overseas Newspaper (a pseudonym); Second Defendant: Mathias Loji; Third Defendant: Alfred Sasako; Fourth Defendant: Google Australia Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Google Inc
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief / Ex Parte Urgent Application for Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions granted and suppression order made.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Publication Restraint, Internet Search Removal
Defamation Interlocutory Injunctions Publication Restraint Internet Search Removal

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Miller (a pseudonym)

Plaintiff

Overseas Newspaper (a pseudonym)

First Defendant

Mathias Loji

Second Defendant

Alfred Sasako

Third Defendant

Google Australia Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Google Inc

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief / Ex Parte Urgent Application for Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted to restrain publication of a defamatory article and Google search results

Ratio Decidendi

The court was satisfied to grant the relief sought because the plaintiff demonstrated a strong prima facie case of defamation, provided sworn evidence as to the falsity of the allegations, the publisher defendants did not dispute the application or the truth of the allegations, and the alleged publications caused serious reputational harm justifying urgent interlocutory restraint.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctions granted and suppression order made.

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 8(1)(e) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 the publication of information tending to reveal the identity of the plaintiff in connection with these proceedings is prohibited.
  • Upon the provision by the plaintiff of the usual undertaking as to damages, the fourth and fifth defendants are to remove the article from Google internet search results until further order.