Kiefel CJ Bell J Keane J Nettle J Gordon J 14. proprietor, like Google, is a publisher of search results, including of autocomplete predictions, but that an innocent dissemination defence will almost always, if not always, be maintainable in a period before notification of an alleged defamation46. 39 That was not an appropriate way to proceed. In point of principle, the law as to publication is tolerably clear47. It is the application of it to the particular facts of the case which tends to be difficult, especially in the relatively novel context of internet search engine results. And contrary to the Court of Appeal's approach, there can be no certainty as to the nature and extent of Google's involvement in the compilation and publication of its search engine results until after discovery. There are only the untested assertions of Google deponents. Furthermore, until and unless Google files a defence it cannot be known what defences will be taken (whatever Google might now say is its intention regarding the defences on which it will rely). Nor does it profit to conjecture what defences might be taken and whether, if taken, they would be likely to succeed. For whatever defences are taken, they will involve questions of mixed fact and law and, to the extent that they involve questions of fact, they will be matters for the jury48. Given the nature of this proceeding, there should have been no thought of summary determination of issues relating to publication or possible defences, at least until after discovery, and possibly at all49. 46 Google Inc v Trkulja (2016) 342 ALR 504 at 590 [349], 591-592 [353], [357]. 47 See Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331 at 363-364 per Isaacs J; [1928] HCA 50. In relation to the publication of hearsay, see Truth (NZ) Ltd v Holloway [1960] 1 WLR 997 at 1002-1003; Wake v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1973] 1 NSWLR 43 at 49-50; Rivkin (2003) 77 ALJR 1657 at 1662 [27] per McHugh J; 201 ALR 77 at 83; John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Obeid (2005) 64 NSWLR 485 at 503-505 [90]-[96] per McColl JA (Sheller JA and McClellan AJA agreeing at 487 [1], 512 [130]). 48 See for example Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362 at 1378; [1963] 3 All ER 952 at 964; Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1996) 185 CLR 183 at 198, 200 per Brennan CJ, 214 per Dawson, McHugh and Gummow JJ, 238 per Gaudron J; [1996] HCA 47. 49 See Wickstead v Browne (1992) 30 NSWLR 1 at 5-6 per Kirby P; affirmed on appeal Wickstead v Browne (1993) 10 Leg Rep SL2.