ABC v Google Inc

An interim injunction affecting freedom of expression cannot be granted against the wrong corporate entity. Where the service provider is a foreign corporation, the claimant must serve the correct defendant and obtain permission for service out of the jurisdiction. Under Human Rights Act 1998, section 12, relief affecting Convention freedom of expression cannot ordinarily be granted in the respondent’s absence unless the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent or compelling reasons justify dispensing with notice. Failure to satisfy these procedural requirements is sufficient to refuse relief without deciding the substantive merits.

ABC sought an interim injunction requiring Google to block access to two Blogger websites and remove a report referring to his spent conviction. The claim pleaded libel, misuse of private information, breaches of Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, malicious falsehood and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

The application was made without notice, although documents had been served on Google UK Limited. The court had to determine whether the application could proceed against that entity and whether the procedural requirements for serving Google LLC in the United States and granting relief affecting freedom of expression had been met.

1. Application refused. The court could not grant the injunction because the claimant had not served the proper defendant. Blogger was operated and controlled by Google Inc, now Google LLC, whereas service had been attempted on Google UK Limited, which did not operate or control Blogger. The authorities cited concerning Blogger materially supported that conclusion.
2. Google LLC was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in California. The claimant therefore required permission to serve the claim form outside the jurisdiction under CPR 6.36 and Practice Direction 6B. No such permission had been obtained.
3. The injunction sought would affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression. Section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 therefore applied. Because Google LLC was neither present nor represented, relief could be granted only if the claimant had taken all practicable steps to notify it or there were compelling reasons not to do so. No compelling reasons existed, and proper service had not been effected.
4. These procedural defects were sufficient to dispose of the application. The court made no decision on whether the injunction would otherwise have been appropriate on the substantive merits.
5. The judge also refused the claimant’s request for a private hearing. The application did not justify derogation from the principle of open justice, although the claimant was permitted to develop his arguments fully.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.