Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd

Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd

Google Inc is not to be regarded as a publisher under common law principles for the purposes of defamation, as its role is purely passive and it does not exercise editorial control over content. Even if it were considered a publisher, it would be exempt from liability under Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce Regulations and s.1 of the Defamation Act 1996. There is no real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction justifying maintenance of proceedings.

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
Application allowed; court declines jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Liability of Internet Service Providers, Jurisdiction, Defamation, Electronic Commerce Regulations, Defamation Act 1996
Defamation Internet Law Civil Procedure Liability of Internet Service Providers Jurisdiction Electronic Commerce Regulations Defamation Act 1996

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 12 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 there was a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether Google Inc is exempt from liability under Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002

Ratio Decidendi

Google Inc is not to be regarded as a publisher under common law principles for the purposes of defamation, as its role is purely passive and it does not exercise editorial control over content. Even if it were considered a publisher, it would be exempt from liability under Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce Regulations and s.1 of the Defamation Act 1996. There is no real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction justifying maintenance of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; court declines jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Master’s order for service out of the jurisdiction set aside.