NGK v GOOGLE INC and GOOGLE UK LIMITED
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Stephens J |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] NIQB 74 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 28 July 2017 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2017] NIQB 74
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: STE10376
Delivered: 08/09/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
_________
NGK
Plaintiff:
-v-
GOOGLE INC.
and
GOOGLE UK LIMITED
Defendants:
________
STEPHENS J
Introduction
[1] This is the plaintiff’s application pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1(1)(b) and (f) and
Order 11 Rule 3 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) 1980 for
leave to serve notice of the writ of summons (in Form No.5 in Appendix A) out of
the jurisdiction on the first defendant, Google Inc., a company incorporated in
Delaware USA and with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California,
USA. Google Inc. owns and operates the Google Search Service (“Google Search”).
The application is based on the propositions that:
(a) The plaintiff’s claim is founded on a tort and the damages were
sustained, or resulted from an act committed, within the jurisdiction
(Rule 1(1)(f)). The torts which are alleged to have been committed are
misuse of private information, breach of confidence and breach of the
Data Protection Act 1998; and/or
(b) In the action begun by the writ an injunction is sought ordering Google
Inc. to do or refrain from doing anything within the jurisdiction
(Rule 1(1)(b)). The injunction which is sought is to:
2
“restrain and prohibit the defendants and each of
them by themselves or by their respective servants
and agents or otherwise howsoever, from
processing personal data relating to the plaintiff
and from indexing or cataloguing such data in
such a manner as to produce search results making
reference or tending to reveal sexual offences
committed by the plaintiff while a child.”
In the alternative the plaintiff seeks an injunction:
“requiring the defendants and each of them to
withdraw and remove personal data relating to the
plaintiff, making reference to or tending to reveal
sexual offences committed by the plaintiff while a
child, from their data processing and indexing
systems and to prevent access to such personal
data in the future.”
[2] The normal procedure is for an application under Order 11 to be heard ex
parte but following the observations of Horner J in Galloway v Frazer & others [2016]
NIQB 7 at paragraph [96] Google Inc. appeared on the hearing of the plaintiff’s
application so that it became a contested hearing with evidence and submissions on
behalf of both the plaintiff and Google Inc. The application for leave to serve notice
of the writ out of the jurisdiction was opposed on the basis that the plaintiff has not
established an arguable case that the grounds in Order 11 are made out and in the
alternative that there is no serious issue to be tried. In respect of these contentions
Google Inc. asserts that the facts do not establish any breach of confidence, that there
is no arguable case for the plaintiff to have had any expectation of privacy, that there
is no arguable case in relation to breach of the Data Protection 1998 and that the
injunction gateway is not available to the plaintiff. Google Inc. also contend that it is
an information society service (“an ISS”) under the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive)
Regulations 2002 (“the 2002 Regulations”) and has a complete defence under those
Regulations.
[3] The application to serve out of the jurisdiction relates solely to the first
defendant, Google Inc. The second defendant, Google UK Limited, is incorporated
in England and Wales and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc. The second
defendant contends that the plaintiff’s claim against Google UK Limited is
fundamentally misconceived since Google UK Limited does not own or operate
Google Search. Google UK Limited contends that there is therefore no basis for a
claim being made against it. That is not an issue to be resolved in the present
application.
To continue reading
Request your trial