- 6 A B A 9. Mr McCoy SC relied on McCallum J’s observations in B Bleyer that led her to reject Trkulja v Google Inc LLC & anor (No 5),7 C D which he said cast “immense doubt” as to whether Trkulja v Google Inc LLC was correct in law, and I will return to this below. Mr McCoy SC C D contended McCallum J’s observations demostrated a good arguable case E F G H that Google Inc could rely on the passivity rule for their Autocomplete and Related Searches functions. 10. In respect of Ground 3, Mr McCoy SC submitted that upon proper understanding of the functionalities of Google Search, it was plain E F G H the Words were merely a true representation of user activity without I J Google Inc having judged the correctness, credibility or reliability of the contents (which contention harked back to Ground 2). Since the neutral I J context in which the Words appeared would be paramount, Mr McCoy K L SC suggested I should have held there was no arguable case against Google Inc for defamation to seize it of jurisdiction under Order 11 of the K L RHC. M N O M IV. GROUND 1 11. Mr McCoy SC is correct to say that in the Decision I have N O accepted the principle in The Duke of Brunswick and Pullman v Walter P Q Hill & Co Ltd8 that publication to at least one other person satisfies the cause of action for defamation, but in the Decision I have gone further to P Q consider and discuss Mr McCoy SC’s core complaint of lack of R publication beyond users at the IT Dept and ILL and the impact of such S S 7 T R 8 [2012] VSC 533 (12 November 2012) [1981] 1 QB 524 T U U V V