Hegglin v Person(s) Unknown & Google Inc
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE EDIS
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves allegations by the Claimant of defamation by an unidentified First Defendant and the role of the Second Defendant, a major search engine, in disseminating defamatory content. Following a previous denial of an interim injunction, multiple applications for costs management and disclosure were reviewed. The court refused to grant a costs capping order, adjusted the Second Defendant's budget, and ordered specific disclosures, aiming to ensure proportionality and effective case management.
Judgment
Note : this judgment was handed down by being emailed to the parties in this form at 17:52pm on 6 th November 2014. This was done within two hours of the end of a full day hearing because of the need to make a costs management order budgeting for future costs only, in circumstances where the trial will start on 24 th November 2014 and costs are being incurred every day at a considerable rate. I had directed this method of handing down during the hearing.
The formal handing down for the purposes of the judgment being given in open court will took place on 14 th November 2014. The judgment, however, is to be taken as being effective from 17:52pm on 6 th November. I also directed the parties to agree and lodge forthwith at that time an agreed Minute of Order reflecting the judgment and the other orders made during the hearing.
Mr Justice Edis :
This case came before Bean J, as he then was, on 29 th July 2014 when he declined to grant an interim injunction to the Claimant and gave directions for a speedy trial, which is due to start on 24 th November 2014. A number of applications have been listed today, the 6 th November 2014 and I have reserved judgment for a short time to enable me to set out my decisions and brief reasoning. Time does not permit any more extensive reasoning than is here set out. There is a real urgency in some of these applications.
The Claimant alleges that he is the victim of a campaign of abuse and vilification by the First Defendant, who has not yet been identified in these proceedings. It is, I think, common ground that the allegations of serious criminal behaviour made by the First Defendant are not true. This is not, therefore, a case where the Second Defendant is being asked to remove old but accurate reports of some behaviour which the Claimant finds embarrassing. The Second Defendant, as everyone knows, operates the most widely used search engine in the world and searches made on the Claimant’s name produce, prominently, results which lead to websites where the lies about which he complains are available to be read. They are found in a number of services provided by the Second Defendant and different considerations may apply to the different services. That, however, is a matter for trial and not for me.
The parties appear to agree about the identity of the publisher of these lies, but the Claimant goes no further than to say that this person is the “prime suspect”. The Second Defendant appears to have done a consid