(Photo: Denis Linine/Shutterstock.com)Google Gets Preliminary Win in Australian Defamation Fight
At a scheduling hearing Friday, the justice hearing the case said a contempt order issued against the tech company should be stayed ahead of a hearing on July 26 about whether it should have been made.
July 12, 2019 at 11:23 AM
2 minute read
Google won a reprieve on Friday in a defamation fight with a Sydney businessman in Australia, after the New South Wales Supreme Court agreed to temporarily halt an order directing the tech giant to be charged with contempt for failing to promptly take down defamatory reviews.
At a procedural hearing to set out the timetable for the ongoing litigation, Justice Desmond Fagan said the contempt order should be stayed ahead of a hearing on July 26 about whether that order should have been made, according to media reports.
The case began when the businessman, whose name has been withheld, filed legal proceedings against Google on July 4, claiming negative reviews were defamatory and were harming his unnamed business.
In response to the businessman's filing, the New South Wales Supreme Court issued an injunction and demanded that Google remove defamatory reviews about the prominent businessman.
However, Google did not take down the posts, and instead, additional damaging reviews of the businessman were posted on Google Reviews that night. When they were still online the following day, the court ordered that Google be charged with contempt. Google took down the reviews on Saturday.
In court on Friday, Fagan said the full evidence and argument about the appropriateness of the order might change the initial picture that led to its granting.
The businessman is represented by Rebekah Giles, a partner in the Sydney office of U.K.-based global law firm Kennedys. The firm declined to comment.
Google also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
|Related Reading:
Google Faces Contempt Charge in Australia For Failing to Remove Negative Reviews
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Kim & Chang, Freshfields, A&O Shearman Take Top Spots for Highest Collective Deal Value as APAC M&A Grew By Just 1% in 2024
Another Partner Exits Deloitte Legal—Former M&A Head Joins UK Top 50 Law Firm
KPMG Law US Targets Alternative Business Licence, Shaking Up Legal Status Quo
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Uber Cannot Be Held Vicariously Liable for Driver's Alleged Negligent Conduct
- 2TikTok Law and TikTok Politics
- 3California Supreme Court Vacates Murder Conviction in Infant Abuse Case
- 4New York’s Proposed Legislation Restraining Transfer of Real Property
- 5Withers Hires Lawyers, Staff From LA Trusts and Estates Boutique
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
