Bleyer v Google Inc [2014] NSWSC 897

Bleyer v Google Inc [2014] NSWSC 897

The proceedings were permanently stayed because the plaintiff's pleaded publication was confined to three identified people, publication after notice was confined to one person, Google Inc was highly unlikely to be liable as publisher for the first two downloads, the remaining issues would be complex and expensive to determine, Google estimated its costs at about $370,000 for a five-day trial, any damages judgment would be unenforceable against Google Inc in the United States, and the resources of the Court and the parties needed to determine the claim were out of all proportion to the plaintiff's interest in vindicating his reputation in the eyes of one person.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion Filed 4 September 2013 Seeking a Permanent Stay or Summary Dismissal as an Abuse of Process
Outcome
Proceedings permanently stayed.
Legal Topics
['abuse of Process' 'proportionality' 'internet Publication' 'search Engine Liability' 'innocent Dissemination' 'stay of Proceedings' 'enforcement of Foreign Defamation Judgments']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['abuse of Process' 'proportionality' 'internet Publication' 'search Engine Liability' 'innocent Dissemination' 'stay of Proceedings' 'enforcement of Foreign Defamation Judgments']

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

Defamation Action / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion Filed 4 September 2013 Seeking a Permanent Stay or Summary Dismissal as an Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be permanently stayed or summarily dismissed as an abuse of process because the costs and court resources required to determine the defamation claim would be out of all proportion to the interest at stake.' "Whether Google Inc could be liable as a publisher of Google search results and hyperlinked material, particularly before and after notice of the plaintiff's complaint." 'Whether the defence of innocent dissemination was likely to be available to Google Inc.' 'Whether the likely unenforceability of an Australian defamation judgment against Google Inc in the United States supported a stay.' 'Whether the application should be determined on the pleadings and particulars as they stood, or postponed because discovery and interrogatories might reveal wider publication.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were permanently stayed because the plaintiff's pleaded publication was confined to three identified people, publication after notice was confined to one person, Google Inc was highly unlikely to be liable as publisher for the first two downloads, the remaining issues would be complex and expensive to determine, Google estimated its costs at about $370,000 for a five-day trial, any damages judgment would be unenforceable against Google Inc in the United States, and the resources of the Court and the parties needed to determine the claim were out of all proportion to the plaintiff's interest in vindicating his reputation in the eyes of one person.

Court Disposition

Proceedings permanently stayed.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 1995, the proceedings are permanently stayed.']