Davison v Habeeb & Ors

Davison v Habeeb & Ors

The claimant failed to establish a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction, as publication was limited to five individuals who were not known to her, and no worthwhile vindication could be obtained. Google Inc. was not fixed with actual knowledge of unlawful information by the claimant's notification, nor was it aware of facts or circumstances from which it would have been apparent that the information was unlawful. Accordingly, Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 provided a defence to Google Inc., and the order granting permission to serve out was set aside.

Parties
Claimant: Andrea Davison; Defendant: Sameh Habeeb; Defendant: Peter Eyre; Defendant: Gordon Bowden; Defendant: The Palestine Telegraph Newspapers Ltd; Defendant: Google Inc.; Defendant: Google UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside Order Granting Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Order set aside; permission to serve out of jurisdiction on Google Inc. revoked.
Legal Topics
Liability of Internet Service Providers, Jurisdiction, Electronic Commerce Regulations, Publication, Freedom of Expression
Defamation Internet Law Civil Procedure Liability of Internet Service Providers Jurisdiction Electronic Commerce Regulations Publication Freedom of Expression

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrea Davison

Claimant

Sameh Habeeb

Defendant

Peter Eyre

Defendant

Gordon Bowden

Defendant

The Palestine Telegraph Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Google Inc.

Defendant

Google UK Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Set Aside Order Granting Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of allegedly defamatory material on Blogger.com constitutes a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether Google Inc. is a publisher at common law for material hosted on Blogger.com
  3. 3 Whether Google Inc. is entitled to a defence under Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction, as publication was limited to five individuals who were not known to her, and no worthwhile vindication could be obtained. Google Inc. was not fixed with actual knowledge of unlawful information by the claimant's notification, nor was it aware of facts or circumstances from which it would have been apparent that the information was unlawful. Accordingly, Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 provided a defence to Google Inc., and the order granting permission to serve out was set aside.

Court Disposition

Order set aside; permission to serve out of jurisdiction on Google Inc. revoked.

Orders

  • Order of Master McCloud dated 20th January 2011 granting the claimant permission to serve the Claim Form on the Fifth Defendant outside the jurisdiction is set aside.