Google LLC v. Defteros
Case No.
M86/2021
Case Information
Lower Court Judgment
17/06/2021 Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) (Beach, Kaye and Niall JJA)
Catchwords
Defamation – Publication – Qualified privilege defence – Common law qualified privilege – Statutory qualified privilege – Where respondent alleged that certain webpages were published by appellant and were defamatory – Where two webpages consisted of set of search results displayed on website www.google.com.au in response to search of respondent's name and hyperlinked article, included in search results, entitled "Underworld loses valued friend at court" (Web Matter) – Where appellant alleged it was for "common convenience and welfare of society" for appellant to return search results that hyperlinked articles published by reputable sources – Where appellant claimed material was matter of considerable public interest such that recipients had necessary interest in material for purposes of s 30(1) of Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) – Whether appellant published Web Matter – Whether common law qualified privilege defence applies – Whether the statutory qualified privilege defence in s 30(1) applies.
Documents
10/12/2021 Hearing (SLA, Canberra by video-connection)
24/12/2021 Notice of appeal
21/01/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
21/01/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
18/02/2022 Written submissions (Respondent)
11/03/2022 Reply
03/05/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
03/05/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
03/05/2022 Outline of oral argument (Respondent)
17/08/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Garlett v. The State of Western Australia & Anor
Case No.
P56/2021
Case Information
Lower Court
Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal)
Catchwords
Constitutional law – Chapter III – Where appellant was sentenced to imprisonment after pleading guilty to two charges – Where appellant's previous offending included robbery – Where appellant referred to State Solicitor's Office to consider whether application should be made under s 35 of High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (HRSO Act), which provided for State to apply for restriction order in relation to "serious offender under custodial sentence who is not a serious offender under restriction" – Where application was made for restriction order under s 48 of HRSO Act – Where appellant argued parts of HRSO Act were incompatible with Chapter III of Constitution – Whether provisions of HRSO Act contravene any requirement of Chapter III as they apply to serious offender under custodial sentence who has been convicted of robbery, referred to in item 34 of Schedule 1 Division 1 of HRSO Act.
Documents*
21/12/2021 Hearing (Single Justice, Canberra by video connection)
23/12/2021 Cause Removed
20/01/2022 Written submissions (Appellant)
20/01/2022 Chronology (Appellant)
31/01/2022 Written submissions (Mr Ryan as amicus curiae)
09/02/2022 Written submissions (Second Respondent)
18/02/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth intervening)
18/02/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
18/02/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
18/02/2022 Written submissions (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania intervening)
25/02/2022 Reply
10/03/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
10/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Appellant)
10/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Second Respondent)
10/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia intervening)
10/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales intervening)
10/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General of the State of Queensland intervening)
10/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of South Australia intervening)
10/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Tasmaina intervening)
11/03/2022 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Audio-visual recording)
11/03/2022 Outline of oral argument (Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening)
07/09/2022 Judgment (Judgment summary)
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: George v The State of Western Australia
Date: 08 December 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 1h 05m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Australian Building and Construction Commission v Pattinson & Anor
Date: 07 December 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 30m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.
Audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra
Case: Kozarov v State of Victoria
Date: 02 December 2021
Transcript: Hearing
AV time: 4h 11m
You accept the terms of use (below) by playing this audio-visual recording.
Terms of use
Access to the audio-visual recordings of the Court is subject to the following conditions:
(1) You will not record, copy, modify, reproduce, publish, republish, upload, post, transmit, broadcast, rebroadcast, store, distribute or otherwise make available, in any manner, any proceeding or part of any proceeding, other than with prior written approval of the Court. However, schools and universities may broadcast/rebroadcast proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without prior written approval.
(2) The audio-visual material available via our web-site of Court proceedings does not constitute the official record of the Court.
(3) Copyright of the footage of the proceedings is retained by the Court.
By clicking "play" (the triangle controls on the video player), you agree to be bound by these terms of use.