05/02/2020 Galloway v Frazer & Ors [2016] NIQB 7 (27 January 2016) [2] I do not propose to set out all the arguments advanced by counsel for the respective parties. This is not intended as a lack of respect for their efforts. I am acutely conscious that this judgment on an interlocutory matter is disproportionately long given the issues which are in dispute. Each party can be assured that I have taken into account all the various arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintiff and Google. I have endeavoured to read all the various authorities. All counsel can be commended for their enthusiasm, although in truth there has been a uniformity of effort which has resulted in every claim, regardless of its cogency, being often afforded the same investment of time and energy. There has been a failure to distinguish between strong and weak arguments. This has meant, and I take just one example, although the criticism applies to both sides, that Google has expended much effort in claiming that it was misled by the plaintiff being called Connolly in a letter sent to it by the plaintiff's solicitors, KRW Law. Any reasonable reading of the letter of complaint dated 27 August 2014 would quickly lead to the conclusion that any confusion in the overall context was highly unlikely, as Mr Lockhart QC for Google did concede. [3] The ex parte application and the inter partes hearing in respect of the application for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction involved 3 different judges, all of whom had to read voluminous papers, listing on 14 separate days and the citing and consideration of almost 100 legal authorities never mind various Statutes, Orders, Regulations and Directives. I will offer suggestions at the conclusion of this judgment as to how applications such as these can be better managed in the future. The need to prioritise other work, and the requirement on at least three occasions to re-read all the papers, has meant that delivery of this judgment has been delayed, which is also unsatisfactory. BACKGROUND INFORMATION [4] George Galloway ("the plaintiff") is a prominent British politician. He is the founder of the Respect Party. William Frederick Frazer ("the defendant") is a Northern Ireland political activist who is well known in the province for his involvement in street protests. Google is the owner of YouTube, which offers a facility for posting video extracts on the internet. Google UK Limited is the UK subsidiary of Google. Google Ireland Limited is the Republic of Ireland subsidiary. There are other defendants, including Independent News Media PLC which owns and publishes the Belfast Telegraph but it has played no part in the present application. [5] A writ of summons was issued on 9 September 2014 by the plaintiff claiming damages and alleging that Google had unlawfully posted on YouTube videos from the defendant and his supporters. These followed on from a "Saturday night with George Galloway" event which had taken place at the Ulster Hall, Belfast, on 23 August 2014. At that stage Google UK Limited or Google Ireland Limited were not defendants to the writ of summons. [6] Google operates in 61 countries and across 61 languages. Each month, more than one billion unique users visit YouTube and over 6 billion hours of video are viewed. Sixty hours of video are uploaded each minute to YouTube. To date almost one billion videos have been uploaded to the YouTube website. It is a truly mammoth undertaking organised on a gigantic scale. [7] YouTube asserts that it is an information society service as defined in the Directive 2000/31/EEC – the "E-commerce Directive" and it provides hosting functions within the ambit of Article 14 of the Ecommerce Directive and Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 ("the E-commerce Regulations"). In Gestevison Telecinco SA v YouTube LLC [2014] 2 CMLR 13 the Madrid Court of Appeal ruled that YouTube was a "host" falling within the scope of Article 14 of the E-commerce Directive. There is no doubt that Google in its guise as a search engine is a data controller: see Google Spain SL and Google Inc v Agencia Espanola de Datos and Another [2014] 3 WLR 569. However the case which was originally made by the plaintiff did not include any complaints against the Google search engine. It is also fair to say that the changes wrought by the internet and social media in the field of communications have meant that the law has struggled to keep up. There still remains a level of uncertainty about the nature of the functions performed by these internet behemoths and what legal terms should properly be applied to the functions they perform. Very often it will depend on the factual matrix. A contested interlocutory application is not the forum in which to reach determinations on controversial factual disputes. The court intends to leave the resolution of such disputes well alone. file:///Users/nerissa/Downloads/Columbia CSV/Galloway v Frazer & Ors [2016] NIQB 7 (27 January 2016).htm 2/26