Kiefel CJ Bell J Keane J Nettle J Gordon J 12. 35 Be that as it may, it is evident for the reasons given by McDonald J that at least some of the search results complained of had the capacity to convey to an ordinary reasonable person viewing the search results that Mr Trkulja was somehow opprobriously associated with the Melbourne criminal underworld, and, therefore, that the search results had the capacity to convey one or more of the defamatory imputations alleged. Whether or not the search results are viewed individually or as a composite does not affect that conclusion. As will be explained, the Court of Appeal's reasoning to the contrary must be rejected. The Court of Appeal's reasoning 36 The Court of Appeal's judgment is of extraordinary length and complexity for the resolution of an appeal against dismissal of a summary disposition application in which the only real question was the capacity of the published matters to defame. It ranges across a broad tract of the law of defamation extending to a substantial, proleptic analysis of the juridical basis of primary and secondary publication in relation to computer search engine proprietors, of the application of innocent publication defences to computer search engine proprietors, and of how and why, in view of the social utility of computer search engines, the existing law of defamation might better be shaped to relate to search engine proprietors or relieve them from liability. Problematically, it also effectively treats the judgment of Beach J in Trkulja v Google (No 5)37 as if it were plainly wrong38 (despite the fact that Google did not appeal against that judgment and that it has been considered with implicit approval in another common law jurisdiction39), and, in relation to the question of capacity of the autocomplete predictions to defame, treats40 the observations of Blue J in Duffy41 as if they went to capacity to defame, notwithstanding that Blue J was describing the process of reasoning by which his Honour, sitting as trial judge, reached 37 [2012] VSC 533. 38 Google Inc v Trkulja (2016) 342 ALR 504 at 589-590 [344]-[348]. 39 Dr Yeung Sau Shing Albert v Google Inc [2014] 4 HKLRD 493 at 534-536 [103]-[106]. See also Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd (2013) 16 HKCFAR 366. 40 Google Inc v Trkulja (2016) 342 ALR 504 at 597 [393]. 41 (2015) 125 SASR 437 at 527 [375].