- 16 A B A views in the common law jurisdictions and the binding broad principles B in Fevaworks Solutions Ltd that may make it easy for a first instance C C court to traipse down a wrong path. D D 29. E F Mr Ng has suggested that I should let the present action proceed and take its course for the factual circumstances to be elicited at trial in order to properly inform any development in internet defamation E F law in such “different context”, and he has further reminded that after all G H Yeung is only required to show a good arguable case that Google Inc was a publisher of the Words. But having considered the arguments by Mr G H McCoy SC and Mr Ng, and the matters discussed in Part VII below, I J I have come to the view that leave to appeal should be granted on the “some other reason in the interests of justice” limb so that the Court of I J Appeal can impart their wisdom on the implications of divergent views in K K international jurisprudence for this jurisdiction. L L 30. M N Finally, Mr McCoy SC has suggested that Google Inc’s ability to censor materials by manually editing results is neither here nor there. I am not particularly persuaded by such argument. Indeed, M N recent demonstration of willingness on the part of Google Inc to O P undertake the massive task of dealing with removal requests to comply with the decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice O P involving Google Spain SL20 arguably supports the conclusion that Q R “there is room for factual debate as to what further blocking steps, if any, would be open for Google Inc to take or how effective they may be”, Q R which also adds colour to the argument that Google Inc may be viewed as S T S 20 see footnote 17 above T U U V V