Kiefel CJ Bell J Keane J Nettle J Gordon J 11. or captions34. Hence, as Kirby J observed in Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd35, "[w]here words have been used which are imprecise, ambiguous or loose, a very wide latitude will be ascribed to the ordinary person to draw imputations adverse to the subject". 33 The Court of Appeal approached the matter on the basis that Mr Trkulja's claim is a composite claim wherein all of the search results comprised in the images matter (Annexure A) are to be looked at as one single composite publication, all of the search results comprised in the web matter (Annexure B) are to be looked at as another single composite publication, and, in determining whether any of the searches comprised in Annexure A is capable of conveying the allegedly defamatory imputations, the ordinary reasonable search engine user is to be attributed with knowledge of the contents of all of the searches comprising Annexure A and Annexure B, and vice versa. 34 As appears from the Amended Statement of Claim, that is not the way in which the case is pleaded. The Amended Statement of Claim conveys that each search and the result which appeared in response to it are to be considered together but separately from each other separate search and response, for the reason that each search may have been conducted by a different person without engaging in any of the other searches. That accords with the view expressed by Callinan J in Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick36 that each hit on a website is a separate publication. Before this Court, counsel for Mr Trkulja did not seek to make anything of the point. He appeared to accept that it was open to aggregate all of the search results in Annexure A and all of the search results in Annexure B, although not A and B, but, if the matter goes to trial, the difference could prove significant. 34 Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632 at 646 per Aickin J; [1979] HCA 3; Rivkin (2003) 77 ALJR 1657 at 1661-1662 [26] per McHugh J, 1699 [187] per Callinan J; 201 ALR 77 at 83, 130; Favell (2005) 79 ALJR 1716 at 1719 [8] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Heydon JJ; 221 ALR 186 at 189. 35 (1998) 193 CLR 519 at 574 [134]. 36 (2002) 210 CLR 575 at 652-653 [197]-[199]; [2002] HCA 56. See also The Buddhist Society of Western Australia Inc v Bristile Ltd [2000] WASCA 210 at [10] per Anderson and Owen JJ, [48] per Wheeler J.