Kiefel CJ Bell J Keane J Nettle J Gordon J 8. hyperlinks returned by web searches and autocomplete predictions. His Honour illustrated the point by reference to a compilation of images of Mr Trkulja among images of convicted criminals Judith Moran, Matthew Johnson and Tony Mokbel, which appeared at page four of the web matter as reproduced in Annexure B, and concluded that it was certainly arguable that a reasonable search engine user would look at the compilation and assume that Mr Trkulja was a convicted criminal17. 27 McDonald J further rejected Google's contention that Google should be held immune from suit as a matter of public interest, observing, correctly, that the range and extent of the defences provided for in Div 2 of Pt 4 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) militate heavily against the development of a common law search engine proprietor immunity18. The proceeding before the Court of Appeal 28 Before the Court of Appeal, Google advanced essentially the same three grounds. The Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to decide the first ground and rejected the third19. But the Court of Appeal upheld the second ground, ruling in relation to the images matter that Mr Trkulja "would have no prospect at all of establishing that the images matter conveyed any of the defamatory imputations relied upon"20, and, in relation to the web matter, that Mr Trkulja "could not possibly succeed in showing that the web matter upon which he relies carried any of the pleaded defamatory imputations"21. For the reasons which follow, the Court of Appeal were wrong so to hold. 29 17 Trkulja v Google Inc [2015] VSC 635 at [69]-[71]. 18 Trkulja v Google Inc [2015] VSC 635 at [76]. 19 Google Inc v Trkulja (2016) 342 ALR 504 at 593 [372], 601 [413]. 20 Google Inc v Trkulja (2016) 342 ALR 504 at 597 [391]. 21 Google Inc v Trkulja (2016) 342 ALR 504 at 598 [396].