Kiefel CJ Bell J Keane J Nettle J Gordon J 21. implications, particularly derogatory implications, that a user with that degree of knowledge and comprehension would likely attribute to the results of a Google search of the kinds in issue. As Kirby P (as his Honour then was) observed in another context, in Wickstead v Browne71, appellate courts should be loath to consider the application of the law to evidence in novel contexts without the benefit of the evidence having been adduced and a trial concluded. Testimony "gives colour and content to the application and development of legal principle"72, and out of the detail of the evidence ultimately proved may arise an insight which aids understanding whether and how principle should be developed. 56 The Court of Appeal were further in error in treating the decision of this Court in Google v ACCC as supportive of the conclusion that, although an image of Mr Trkulja may have appeared in responses to Google searches which included the words "criminal", "melbourne" and "underworld", that was simply because those terms appeared in a webpage which contained that image, and for that reason were not capable of conveying to the ordinary reasonable user of a search engine the imputation that Mr Trkulja was a criminal or part of the Melbourne criminal underworld73. 57 The question in Google v ACCC was whether Google had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct contrary to s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) by displaying misleading and deceptive "sponsored links". At first instance, it was held that Google had not done so because it was simply a conduit which passed on the sponsored links without any adoption or approval of their contents74. On appeal, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held 75 that and Handley JA agreeing at 161), which suggest that the circumstances of publication, specifically the mode or manner of publication, are relevant to the characteristics of the ordinary reasonable person. 71 (1992) 30 NSWLR 1 at 5-6. 72 (1992) 30 NSWLR 1 at 5 per Kirby P. 73 Google Inc v Trkulja (2016) 342 ALR 504 at 541-543 [175]-[178]. 74 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Trading Post Australia Pty Ltd (2011) 197 FCR 498 at 536-540 [176]-[185]. 75 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Google Inc (2012) 201 FCR 503 at 522 [95].