Kiefel CJ Bell J Keane J Nettle J Gordon J 18. Annexure A, it could not be considered capable of carrying any of the pleaded imputations62. 49 As to the web matter, the Court of Appeal referred first to pages five to seven of Annexure B, which also contained autocomplete predictions, and relied on its earlier conclusion that the autocomplete predictions were incapable of being defamatory63. Their Honours concluded that page one of Annexure B was essentially of the same character as pages five to seven of Annexure B and, further, that the apparent reference to Mr Trkulja being "Streisand'd" indicated that64: "The whole point of this page is that the plaintiff's successful defamation proceeding had produced the Streisand effect. Far from carrying any of the defamatory imputations pleaded by the plaintiff, the commentator was pointing out that the plaintiff's successful defamation proceedings – in which he had been awarded damages in respect of an imputation that he was somehow connected with the Melbourne underworld – had not brought matters to an end." 50 The Court of Appeal thereafter referred to page two of Annexure B, in which, according to the Court of Appeal, the only reference to Mr Trkulja was in connection with his earlier successful defamation proceeding against Google, under the heading "Google defamation case and 'publishing' in the digital age – Crikey". That led their Honours to observe65: "How that could possibly be said to be defamatory of the plaintiff we do not understand. The fact that the reference to the plaintiff's earlier successful defamation proceeding was on a results page which adverted to the television series, 'Underbelly', which contained thumbnails of persons associated with the Melbourne underworld (none of which were the plaintiff) and which referred to a reputed criminal named Arico, could not possibly deflect attention from the import of the only reference to the plaintiff." 62 Google Inc v Trkulja (2016) 342 ALR 504 at 597-598 [393]-[395]. 63 Google Inc v Trkulja (2016) 342 ALR 504 at 598 [397]. 64 Google Inc v Trkulja (2016) 342 ALR 504 at 598 [398]. 65 Google Inc v Trkulja (2016) 342 ALR 504 at 598 [399].