Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

The facts in Tamiz v Google

Mr Payam Tamiz (“the Claimant”) was a candidate for local elections in Thanet in 2011. He resigned from his candidacy after he was alleged to have made inappropriate remarks. After his resignation a blog post was written on the “London Muslim blog” relating to the Claimant’s remarks. Comments were made on this blog post, eight of which were the subject of the litigation in Tamiz v Google Inc & Anor. These comments referred to Mr Tamiz as a “racist” and alleged that Mr Tamiz sold drugs, among other things. Mr Tamiz was unhappy with this and complained to the “Blogger” platform, which Google Inc owned. After correspondence with Google on the issue Mr Tamiz issued a claim form on or about 10 August 2011. It was issued on 16 August 2011 and the Master gave permission for Mr Tamiz to serve the claim form in California on 22 September 2011.

Google Inc sought to have the order allowing serving of the claim form on Google Inc set aside on the following grounds:

  1. That Google Inc is not a publisher of the material in question but a neutral service provider and could not have been expected to investigate whether such comments were defamatory
  2. That Google is not a publisher for the purposes of the English law of defamation
  3. That even if Google Inc were held to be a publisher, it would be protected from liability for the defamatory comments by virtue of Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002

The law relating to defamation

In order for a Claimant to succeed in a claim for defamation they must show that:

  1. That a defamatory statement has been made
  2. That this defamatory statement refers to the Claimant
  3. That the defamatory statement was published to at least one other person apart from the Claimant

In order for a statement to be defamatory it must lower the Claimant in the eyes of right-thinking people. This is an objective test.

Further, the defamatory statement must refer to the Claimant (even though it is not necessary that the Defendant should have intended that the statement refers to the Claimant). A statement can be defamatory even if it doesn’t mention the Claimant by name.

Thirdly – and this is the salient point in question in Tamiz v Google – the defamatory statement referring to the Claimant must have been communicated to at least one other person than the Claimant themselves. The issue at hand in Tamiz v Google was whether Google Inc could be held to be a publisher and therefore liable for the comments.

The High Court’s judgment in Tamiz v Google

The High Court first considered whether the comments made were defamatory. The Judge concluded that at least some of the comments on the blog had a defamatory sting.  Whether Google was a publisher for the purposes of the English common law of defamation was then reflected upon. Mr Justice Eady found that Google Inc was not a publisher under defamation law as it was not required to take any positive step to remove offending material from the Blogger platform as its role as a platform provider was a purely passive one. Mr Tamiz’s claim for defamation failed. Although the Judge had no need to consider defences to the defamation claim on this basis he nonetheless proceeded to do so. Judge Eady therefore considered s.1 of the Defamation Act 1996 and concluded that a defence would be viable on this basis. He also concluded that an alternative defence based upon Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 would exempt Google from liability for defamation.

Tagged with →  
Share →

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.52 Average

21 Reviews

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 1 month ago

Steven

Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 1 month ago

Dinah

Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 1 month ago

Ankar

At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 2 months ago

Chris

Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 2 months ago

Dominic

Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 2 months ago

Kurt

Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 2 months ago

Keith

Quick fast professional service.

Posted 2 months ago

Michael

"Prompt, efficient and practical advice that resulted in me getting some additional money tax free."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Patient and thorough advice given to me around my Settlement Agreement

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

"Excellent service, getting back to you promptly giving you very good advice."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

I found Chris Hadrill to be an excellent help, he is very knowledgeable and gives good ,concise ,strategic advice .He makes himself readily accessible when you need him.I would personally highly recommend him.

Posted 2 months ago

Christine

Professional, efficient and reliable service provided. I strongly recommend them and I would use this service again.

Posted 2 months ago