Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25

Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25

The High Court held that the search results and autocomplete predictions complained of had the capacity to convey to an ordinary reasonable person the alleged defamatory imputations about Mr Trkulja. The Court concluded that it was not appropriate to summarily dismiss the appellant’s proceeding as having no real prospect of success, as it was at least strongly arguable that the results published by Google could convey the imputations pleaded. The orders of the Court of Appeal were set aside and the matter restored with costs to the appellant.

Parties
Appellant: Milorad Trkulja (aka Michael Trkulja); Respondent: Google LLC
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Defamatory Imputations, Publication on Internet, Summary Dismissal, Capacity to Defame, Search Engine Liability
Defamation Torts Civil Procedure Defamatory Imputations Publication on Internet Summary Dismissal Capacity to Defame Search Engine Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milorad Trkulja (aka Michael Trkulja)

Appellant

Google LLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Google published the allegedly defamatory material against the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the search results and autocomplete predictions were capable of conveying defamatory imputations about the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the proceeding had no real prospect of success and should be summarily dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the search results and autocomplete predictions complained of had the capacity to convey to an ordinary reasonable person the alleged defamatory imputations about Mr Trkulja. The Court concluded that it was not appropriate to summarily dismiss the appellant’s proceeding as having no real prospect of success, as it was at least strongly arguable that the results published by Google could convey the imputations pleaded. The orders of the Court of Appeal were set aside and the matter restored with costs to the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Google LLC substituted as respondent in place of Google Inc pursuant to r 42.07.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth)
  • Orders 2 to 6 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria set aside