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, as a platform provider with a purely passive role and no editorial control, is not a publisher at common law for the defamatory comments. Even if it were, it would be exempt from liability under s.1 Defamation Act 1996 and Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce Regulations. There is insufficient evidence of a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction, and the court declines jurisdiction over Google Inc.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 449
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 and to Decline Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application granted; order for service out of jurisdiction set aside; court declines jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Liability of Internet Service Providers, Jurisdiction in Defamation, Publication on the Internet, Defences Under Defamation Act 1996, Electronic Commerce Regulations, Threshold of Seriousness in Libel, Publisher Definition Under Common Law
Defamation Internet Law Civil Procedure Liability of Internet Service Providers Jurisdiction in Defamation Publication on the Internet Defences Under Defamation Act 1996 Electronic Commerce Regulations +2 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 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 and to Decline Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Google Inc is a publisher at common law for defamatory blog comments
  2. 2 Whether a real and substantial tort occurred within the jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether Google Inc is exempt from liability under s.1 Defamation Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

Google Inc, as a platform provider with a purely passive role and no editorial control, is not a publisher at common law for the defamatory comments. Even if it were, it would be exempt from liability under s.1 Defamation Act 1996 and Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce Regulations. There is insufficient evidence of a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction, and the court declines jurisdiction over Google Inc.

Court Disposition

Application granted; order for service out of jurisdiction set aside; court declines jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Order for service out of jurisdiction on Google Inc set aside.
  • Declaration that the court has no jurisdiction to try the claim against Google Inc.