KT v Google LLC [2019] NSWSC 1015

KT v Google LLC [2019] NSWSC 1015

The order referring the defendant to the registrar to be charged with contempt was set aside because evidence not before Davies J showed that the email and web form attempts did not bring the 4 July 2019 orders and necessary supporting affidavit to the attention of responsible personnel of the defendant before the contempt referral. The defendant had not actually received effective notification of the orders and had not knowingly disobeyed them, so the elements of contempt could not be proved and it would be unjust and futile to allow the referral order to stand.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Service on a Foreign Corporation; Substituted Service; Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders / Defendant's Notice of Motion to Set Aside Orders Made in Its Absence on 4 and 5 July 2019
Outcome
Order made 5 July 2019 for referral of defendant to be charged with contempt set aside under r 36.16(2)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.
Legal Topics
['service on a Foreign Corporation' 'substituted Service' 'ex Parte Interlocutory Orders' 'setting Aside Orders Made in Absence of a Party' 'referral to Registrar to Charge Contempt' 'google Reviews']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'contempt' 'defamation'] ['service on a Foreign Corporation' 'substituted Service' 'ex Parte Interlocutory Orders' 'setting Aside Orders Made in Absence of a Party' 'referral to Registrar to Charge Contempt' 'google Reviews']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Service on a Foreign Corporation; Substituted Service; Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders / Defendant's Notice of Motion to Set Aside Orders Made in Its Absence on 4 and 5 July 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders made against the defendant in its absence on 4 and 5 July 2019 should be set aside under r 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.' 'Whether the order referring the defendant to the registrar to be charged with contempt was justified where the defendant contended that the orders of 4 July 2019 had not been brought to the attention of responsible personnel before the alleged breach.' "Whether the substituted service and other attempted electronic notifications promptly brought the summons, affidavit and orders to the defendant's attention."]

Ratio Decidendi

The order referring the defendant to the registrar to be charged with contempt was set aside because evidence not before Davies J showed that the email and web form attempts did not bring the 4 July 2019 orders and necessary supporting affidavit to the attention of responsible personnel of the defendant before the contempt referral. The defendant had not actually received effective notification of the orders and had not knowingly disobeyed them, so the elements of contempt could not be proved and it would be unjust and futile to allow the referral order to stand.

Court Disposition

Order made 5 July 2019 for referral of defendant to be charged with contempt set aside under r 36.16(2)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • ['Order 2 made by Davies J on 5 July 2019 referring the defendant pursuant to Rule 55.11 of the Supreme Court Rules to the Registrar and directing the Registrar to charge the defendant with contempt is vacated.']