Your selected location:
25 Jun 2019

Written by Daniel Morris, Special Counsel, Commercial Litigation

In June 2018, we reported on the case of Michael Trkulja — the man who sued Google Inc for defamation. To recap, the High Court had overturned a decision by the Victorian Court of Appeal to dismiss Mr Trkulja’s case without a trial on the basis that he had not pleaded a tenable claim against Google. Whilst agreeing with the Court of Appeal that Mr Trkulja’s pleadings were flawed, the High Court declined to dismiss the claim outright and instead gave Mr Trkulja an opportunity to redraft his pleadings.

Mr Trkulja has now redrafted his pleadings in the Victorian Supreme Court. However, the Victorian Supreme Court is still not satisfied with the state of his pleadings — describing them as  ‘unnecessarily confusing and imprecise’.

The Court found that Mr Trkulja’s pleadings did not clearly allege ‘publication,’ which is an essential element of defamation claims. The Court required Mr Trkulja’s pleadings to clearly articulate the connection between ‘the search terms used to identify the material generated by the Google search engine and the search terms used by the persons who downloaded material off the internet as a necessary step in the course of the publication’.

This most recent development in Mr Trkulja’s legal battle against Google Inc has highlighted some of the difficulties that a plaintiff is likely to face when taking action in defamation against a search engine provider like Google Inc. Those difficulties will typically exist where a defendant like Google Inc has neither produced the defamatory material nor actively set out to publish it, as opposed to simply making it accessible to the public as a result of an online search. At the very least, the pleading in such cases will need to identify specifically, the search terms used by each individual alleged to have viewed the material, and the dates when the specified search terms were used in each instance. That is even before the plaintiff proceeds to state the facts that would make the offending material defamatory as a matter of law.

In Mr Trkulja’s case, the Court rejected the argument that requiring such amendments to his pleadings would impose an intolerable burden upon him, finding to the contrary, that permitting imprecise pleadings to stand would likely ‘prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the proceeding’.

The Court has given Mr Trkulja another 21 days to submit to Google a proposed further amended statement of claim. We will continue to keep our readers updated.

CASE UPDATE – 14 June 2019

Trkulja v Google LLC: David v Goliath Rages On

In March 2019 and June 2018, we published updates on the ongoing saga of Michael Trkulja, in his litigation against Google Inc for defamation. By way of background, Mr Trkulja is alleging Google defamed him when he appeared in some searches regarding some Melbourne underworld figures between 2012 and 2014. Google originally applied to have Mr Trkulja’s claim set aside on the basis that he had not pleaded a tenable claim against them. This application was dismissed, a decision which was then overturned on appeal and summary judgment entered against Google. Mr Trkulja appealed to the High Court, who overturned the appeal decision, set aside the summary judgment and gave Mr Trkulja an opportunity to redraft his pleadings.

Recently, the Victorian Supreme Court has handed down the latest development in this ongoing legal battle. The Court was quite critical of the way Mr Trkulja has pleaded his claim, describing his pleadings as “unnecessarily confusing and imprecise”. Although the claim was not dismissed entirely, there are a number of substantial changes required to be made to his pleadings if the matter is to proceed to trial. Not only were their substantial issues with the pleadings but Mr Trkulja also apparently omitted a number of details in his allegations about the alleged defamatory searches, including dates and search terms used.

Although there was no major determination as to whether Mr Trkulja’s claim will ultimately be successful, there were still a number of pertinent points to note in this most recent published decision.

The decision acknowledges the uncertainty of publication by a search engine compared to traditional publication by a printed media. In printed media, the “final product retains a constant form”, whereas with a Google search, what is published on each occasion of each search is a unique collection of digital images appearing on a computer screen. There is uncertainty about whether the Google Images are comprised of “multiple single publications or a composite publication”. Unfortunately in this case, the plaintiff apparently does not make any clear submissions on the point. The decision also acknowledges that there is a clear distinction between alleged defamatory material that remained accessible on the internet and visible by way of a Google search, and material that was actually downloaded by conducting a Google search.

The apparent financial standing of the defendant compared with that of the plaintiff was also noted, and for this reason, the John Dixon J noted that the Court had provided “several indulgencies”. However, he goes on to note ominously that “the court’s patience in providing opportunities for a claim to be property articulated is not unlimited”.

We are curious to see what happens next in this saga. Based on the comments of John Dixon J in this latest published decision, it appears that the Court is losing patience with Mr Trkulja and the way he has pleaded his claim. Whilst a summary dismissal of Mr Trkulja’s claim caused by the inadequacies of his pleadings would be an unsatisfying end to the narrative


Find out more about to HHG’s Defamation and Dispute Resolution services and commercial litigation lawyers

*This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. Please consult one of our experienced Legal Team for specific advice relevant to your situation.

Supporting Western Australians for more than 100 years

"Always fast and thorough service. Thank you"

Sitka Pil

My circumstances at the time I made contact with HHG were dire following my argument being rejected by two no win no fee firms. Following my initial meeting with HHG's employment law team I was left feeling extremely positive by the response and concern shown by HHG in regards to their support of my argument along with their preparedness to pursue an outcome on my behalf.

I accept the fact that nobody really wins in these cases (mental health/ workplace) however the end result was what would be considered most favourable and far in excess of what would have been achieved had I not sought the advice from HHG.

I have no hesitation in recommending HHG to anyone caught up in the messy circumstances I found myself in at the time.

Great advice and five-star commitment to their client!!"

Nathan Lynch

"Thank you for such great assistance with the transaction of Flying Domestics on behalf of Lorna Good. It has been such a pleasure to work with the HHG Legal Group and I look forward to working with you in the future."

Jim Goodwin

"Simon Creek and his team were at all times empathic, professional and confident.  My matter needed to be addressed within a pressing time frame, and their availability at short notice and contact after hours was much appreciated.  It caused me considerable stress, but having such a thoroughly reliable and competent team to call on helped me to feel in control. Although I hope not to need their services again in future, I would be confident in doing so!"

Dr Lana Bell

"A good outcome is what we can expect.  A great outcome is a sign of a company which does the very best for their clients. A very big thank you to Daniel Morris for showing empathy towards my small and much needed legal action.

To HHG Legal Group, thank you for a great outcome.  I would recommend your company to anyone seeking legal services."

Jan Atkinson

"Your support this morning was amazingly kind, not to mention your totally reassuring competence, knowledge and wisdom that you used on my behalf.  It was extremely reassuring to have your knowledgeable support, and I particularly appreciated your real and obvious kindness to me. It means so much at a very difficult time. I'm so grateful to you."

Family Law Client

"Janene was very professional and we established a good rapport quickly. The subject of death and wills can be quite confronting to deal with, however, Janene's approach was soft and accommodating."

Lynette Livesey

"A big thank you to HHG for their professional service, continued support, and wide range of legal knowledge. Our clients have given us nothing but kind words regarding HHG Legal Group and so we have no hesitation in referring and recommending Simon Creek and HHG Legal Group for their outstanding services and legal expertise."

Nigel Plowman, Director at McKinley Plowman & Associates

"Simon is a friendly and practical legal advisor. I have received great feedback from the clients I have referred to him and his team at HHG Legal Group."

Richard Beal, Director at BDO

"Over the last few years, I have been impressed by Simon’s legal ability, management skills, entrepreneurial spirit, personal integrity and people skills. He appears to be that rare breed of lawyer – both knowledgeable and commercial."

Michael Malone, Founder of iiNet

"Our family has been a client of HHG Legal Group over many years.  Business has included drawing up of wills for three generations and preparing of probate for my father in law. I would have no hesitation in recommending HHG Legal Group to anyone requiring such services."

Bernice Climie

"You should be congratulated for the manner in which your staff address clients and we found our dealings with your company, once again a very pleasant experience and we would like to truly thank you for your efforts."

Steve Harvey and Jane Powell

"HHG Legal were absolutely fantastic. Extremely responsive and brought calm to our chaotic family situation through their knowledge and caring attitude. Extremely professional from our very first contact with them and they expertly guided our family though the required legal process over almost a 12 month period."

Amanda Williamson

"Fantastic team! They really care about their client. Tim Colcutt is a 'go that extra mile' guy who gives his client his all. I can't recommend HHG and Tim enough."

Kerry Samson

"I had a fantastic lawyer in Anne Hurley. She helped me out a great deal with good, sound advice in a friendly, professional manner. First class, thanks Anne"

Graeme Hammond

"Marine Plant Systems has been working with HHG Legal Group for a few years now and they continually provide first-class service. Their professional advice has been invaluable to our company."

Carolin Grimm - Marine Plant Systems

"We were kept up to date at all times. Pricing was always updated over the time period so we remained "in budget". Personal access to someone whenever I had questions. All in all a great experience without too much fuss."

Rosslyn Tasker - COO AltusQ Pty Ltd

"Good service you can count on."

Miles Lee

"HHG Legal Group has provided outstanding support as I have taken the journey of buying a business, their professionalism is beyond reproach. Their assistance throughout the Due Diligence process has been invaluable, I would fully recommend them."

Mark Armitage

"Very friendly and efficient service - what a pleasure working with Anne."

Jacques Taylor

"I highly recommend Daniel from HHG Legal Mandurah. When dealing with a complicated legal property matter recently I was extremely impressed by Daniel's honesty and integrity and the legal advice I received. I am very happy with the service from HHG Legal."

Tony Walker

Select your location:

Please select your nearest office location so we can show you the most relevant information.