- 7 A B A complaint on service out of jurisdiction before concluding Yeung has a B good arguable case on the issue of “publication”. C D C 12. Mr McCoy SC has suggested that the facts in Bleyer are D almost identical to the present case, and has reminded that the outcome in E F that case is the opposite result. In that case, Mr Bleyer alleged that Google Inc published seven defamatory items (mainly “snippets” and E F hyperlinks to offending articles) about him to three people who G H performed “google” searches. Two readers accessed the materials in December 2012. Mr Bleyer’s solicitors asked Google Inc to remove the materials in March 2013. I J G H Another reader accessed the materials in April 2013. Google Inc took down some but not all of the materials in May 2013. Google Inc applied to stay the proceedings or dismiss them I J as an abuse of process. K L K 13. Mr McCoy SC has drawn my attention to the following L observations by McCallum J in Bleyer: M N O P Q R S T M “29. In the present case, according to the existing pleading, the “best particulars of publication” the plaintiff can presently provide is that the seven matters complained of were published to two people who live in the state of Victoria (supplemented in correspondence by a third, a resident of this State). In my view, where the prospect of further and better particulars being provided after discovery and interrogatories is necessarily speculative, the appropriate course is to determine the defendant's application on the pleadings and particulars as they stand. The processes of the Court should not be beholden to speculation. In defamation proceedings in particular, the scope of publication is an important issue. The Court should not encourage a practice of commencing proceedings for defamation on the strength of a small number of downloads of material from the Internet in the speculative hope of proving wider circulation after discovery and interrogatories. …… N O P Q R S T U U V V