Which court decided it?

High Court (Queen's Bench) in 2009. Neutral citation: [2009] EWHC 1765 (QB).

Why does it matter for UK journalists?

Search engine operators are not publishers of snippets they automatically generate. Distinct treatment for pre-notification vs post-notification periods. Established principles carried into Tamiz v Google and later cases.

Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corp

[2009] EWHC 1765 (QB) — High Court (Queen's Bench), 2009

Last reviewed: 14 July 2026Next review due: 14 January 2027

What the court held

Eady J held that Google as a search-engine operator was not the publisher of snippets returned in search results, distinguishing it from primary publishers. Foundational for UK intermediary-liability law in defamation.

Key rulings

Search engine operators are not publishers of snippets they automatically generate.
Distinct treatment for pre-notification vs post-notification periods.
Established principles carried into Tamiz v Google and later cases.

Topics

DefamationIntermediary liabilitysearch-engines

Related cases (citator)

How this case connects to others in the landmark set — lines of authority, statutory supersession, and companion rulings.

Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68
Both address online intermediary / search-engine liability in defamation.

Authoritative source

Read the full judgment on BAILII (British and Irish Legal Information Institute):

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1765.html

Cite this page

Format

Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corp [2009] EWHC 1765 (QB) (High Court (Queen's Bench)) &lt;https://www.ukjournohub.com/law/landmark-cases/metropolitan-international-schools-designtechnica&gt; accessed 14 July 2026.

Please cite when quoting or paraphrasing on UK JournoHub — see /ai.txt for policy.

Related landmark cases

Landmark caseTamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68Read →Landmark caseCadwalladr v Banks [2022] EWHC 1417 (QB)Read →Landmark caseDepp v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 2911 (QB)Read →Landmark caseDoyle v Smith [2018] EWHC 2935 (QB)Read →

Case summaries are drafted by UK JournoHub Editorial for practising UK journalists. They are not legal advice. Always consult primary sources and, for high-risk stories, take specialist legal advice.