Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 449 (QB) (02 March 2012)

Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 449 (QB) (02 March 2012)

Google Inc is not to be regarded as a publisher under common law principles for defamatory comments posted on Blogger.com, and even if it were, it would be exempted from liability by Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002. The court declines jurisdiction and sets aside the order for service out of jurisdiction.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 449 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Payam Tamiz; First Defendant: Google Inc; Second Defendant: Google UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Application to Set Aside Order for Service Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Order for service out of jurisdiction set aside; court declines jurisdiction; claim against Google Inc dismissed.
Legal Topics
Liability of Internet Service Providers, Jurisdiction, Publisher Definition, Statutory Defences, Electronic Commerce Regulations
Defamation Internet Law Civil Procedure Liability of Internet Service Providers Jurisdiction Publisher Definition Statutory Defences Electronic Commerce Regulations

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Payam Tamiz

Claimant

Google Inc

First Defendant

Google UK Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Application to Set Aside Order for Service Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Google Inc is a publisher for purposes of English defamation law
  2. 2 Whether Google Inc is liable for defamatory comments posted on Blogger.com
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the claim against Google Inc

Ratio Decidendi

Google Inc is not to be regarded as a publisher under common law principles for defamatory comments posted on Blogger.com, and even if it were, it would be exempted from liability by Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002. The court declines jurisdiction and sets aside the order for service out of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Order for service out of jurisdiction set aside; court declines jurisdiction; claim against Google Inc dismissed.

Orders

  • Master's order for service out of jurisdiction set aside
  • Claim against Google Inc dismissed