Townsend (Callum) v Google Inc. and Google UK Limited
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Stephens J |
| Judgment Date | 08 September 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] NIQB 81 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 08 September 2017 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2017] NIQB 81
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
_________
CALLUM TOWNSEND
Plaintiff:
-v-
GOOGLE INC.
and
GOOGLE UK LIMITED
Defendants:
________
STEPHENS J
Introduction
[1a] This is an unanonymised version of the judgment which I delivered on 28 July
2017 in an anonymised form and with a reporting restriction. I adopted that course
to enable the plaintiff to consider whether he wished to appeal and to consider
whether there was any reason for the continuation of either the anonymity order or
any part of the reporting restriction order. The plaintiff does not wish to appeal and
accepted that there is no continuing basis for the anonymity order. However by a
written submission dated 5 September 2017 it was contended on behalf of the
plaintiff that the effect of the removal of the anonymity order will be to reveal
publicly the plaintiff’s spent convictions. The plaintiff asked for consideration to be
given to amending the judgment so as to redact the detail of the plaintiff’s spent
convictions. The first defendant relied on the importance of the principle of open
justice referring the court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Khuja (formerly
known as PNM) v Times Newspapers Ltd and others [2017] 3 WLR 351. The first
defendant also submitted that paragraphs [6] – [13] of the judgment in this case,
which include references to the plaintiff’s spent convictions, are directly relevant to
the factual matrix and the conclusions set out in the judgment. That the
understanding of those reading the judgment and the reasons for the conclusions
reached would be materially undermined if references to the plaintiff’s spent
convictions were edited out of the judgment. Today, 7 September 2017, it was
2
conceded on behalf of the plaintiff that on the facts of this case there was no
sustainable argument for redacting the plaintiff’s spent convictions. Accordingly by
consent I remove the anonymity and reporting restriction orders which I imposed at
an earlier stage and I now deliver this judgment in an unanonymised form.
[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 (“the 1998 Act”); 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:
“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
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
NT 1 and another v Google LLC (Information Commissioner intervening)
...taken by the data subject”. In reaching that conclusion I am following a path already trodden by Stephens J in Townsend v Google Inc [2017] NIQB 81, and a principle that seems to be logical, and well-established in domestic and European law. In Townsend, Stephens J refused an application fo......