Wheat v Alphabet Inc / Google LLC & Anor [2018] EWHC 550 (Ch) (26 March 2018)

Wheat v Alphabet Inc / Google LLC & Anor [2018] EWHC 550 (Ch) (26 March 2018)

The claimant failed to establish a good arguable case that his claims in copyright or contract fall within the relevant jurisdictional gateways. The copyright claims do not disclose actionable infringement within the UK, hotlinking is not infringement, and Google benefits from safe harbour defences. The contractual claim is against the wrong Google entity and is not justiciable in England. England is not the most appropriate forum. Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction is refused and the applications are dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 550 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Christopher Wheat; First Defendant: Alphabet Inc./Google LLC; Second Defendant: Monaco Telecom S. A. M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction / Judgment on Applications for Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction and Related Orders
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Secondary Infringement, Breach of Contract, Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Safe Harbour Provisions, Hotlinking, Limitation Period
Intellectual Property Contract Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Secondary Infringement Breach of Contract Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Wheat

Claimant

Alphabet Inc./Google LLC

First Defendant

Monaco Telecom S. A. M

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction / Judgment on Applications for Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a good arguable case for permission to serve Google LLC out of the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses a serious issue to be tried on the merits
  3. 3 Whether England and Wales is the most appropriate forum for the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish a good arguable case that his claims in copyright or contract fall within the relevant jurisdictional gateways. The copyright claims do not disclose actionable infringement within the UK, hotlinking is not infringement, and Google benefits from safe harbour defences. The contractual claim is against the wrong Google entity and is not justiciable in England. England is not the most appropriate forum. Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction is refused and the applications are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to serve Google LLC out of the jurisdiction refused
  • Application to deem service on Google LLC as effected refused