Pinpoint · Judgment search

Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc (Service out of Jurisdiction)

[2022] FCA 681

Federal Court of Australia · 10 June 2022 · Official judgment

Cited by 7 indexed judgments

All Cited 7

2022: 2 citing judgments 2023: 2 citing judgments 2024: 3 citing judgments 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
citing judgments per year of which distinguished, doubted, not followed or overruled · line marks the decision

Sort: Oldest first Newest first Most cited

  1. LK Law Pty Ltd v Karas (No 2) [2022] FCA 970 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  2. Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Boart Longyear Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1224 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  3. Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc. [2023] FCA 1148 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 2× · judgment
  4. Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc. (Costs) [2023] FCA 1496 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 4× · judgment
  5. University of New England v Boerner [2024] FCA 191 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  6. Cuzzubbo v Solgold Plc [2024] FCA 594 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  7. Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc (Leave to appeal stay and costs orders) [2024] FCA 1078 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment

Tree of authority

Built on

The authorities this case relies on, earliest first, and the authorities those relied on. Open a branch to go further back.

Built upon

Later cases citing this one, in order of decision, and the cases citing them in turn. The most cited are shown at each level.

Authorities cited (23)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Century Insurance Ltd & Ors v New Zealand Guardian Trust Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 376 Cited cited 54×
  2. Bray v F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd [2003] FCAFC 153 Cited cited 129×
  3. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 Cited cited 48×
  4. Ho v Akai Pty Ltd (in liq) [2006] FCAFC 159 Cited cited 110×
  5. Webster Computer Systems Pty Ltd v Fujitsu Ltd [2007] FCA 825 Cited cited 7×
  6. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yellow Page Marketing BV [2010] FCA 1218 Cited cited 40×
  7. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v April International Marketing Services Australia Pty Ltd (No 6) [2010] FCA 704 Cited cited 21×
  8. Commissioner of Taxation v Zeitouni [2013] FCA 1011 Cited cited 29×
  9. Jasmin Solar Pty Ltd v Trina Solar Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1453 Cited cited 20×
  10. Ross v Cotter [2015] FCA 310 Cited cited 14×
  11. Park (Trustee) v Tschannen (Bankrupt) [2016] FCA 137 Cited cited 13×
  12. Commissioner of Taxation v Caratti (No 2) [2018] FCA 1500 Cited cited 21×
  13. Philipsen v American Medical Systems LLC [2018] FCA 246 Applied or followed
  14. Sanum Investments Limited v ST Group Co., Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1047 Cited cited 6×
  15. Kosmos Capital Pty Ltd v Turiya Ventures LLC [2019] FCA 528 Cited cited 8×
  16. Israel Discount Bank Limited v ACN 078 272 867 Pty Ltd (in liq) (formerly Advance Finances Pty Ltd) [2019] FCAFC 90 Cited cited 16×
  17. NPP Australia Limited v Ripple Labs, Inc [2020] FCA 1237 Cited cited 7×
  18. ACN 117 641 004 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (formerly Vale Pty Ltd) v S& P Global, Inc [2020] FCA 1745 Applied or followed
  19. Australian Information Commission v Facebook Inc [2020] FCA 531 Cited cited 17×
  20. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Facebook, Inc. [2021] FCA 244 Cited cited 4×
  21. Epic Games, Inc v Google LLC (Service Out of Jurisdiction) [2021] FCA 666 Cited cited 2×
  22. Epic Games, Inc v Apple Inc [2021] FCAFC 122 Cited cited 8×
  23. Facebook Inc v Australian Information Commissioner [2022] FCAFC 9 Cited cited 2×
How the citator works

Citations are read from the text of each indexed judgment. A report citation written alongside a neutral citation, such as [2008] HCA 9; (2008) 234 CLR 50, teaches the citator that both name the same case, so later citations by either are counted together.

Treatment is read from the words in the sentence that cites the case: overruled or disapproved; not followed or declined to follow; distinguished or distinguishable; doubted; applied, followed or adopted. Anything else is cited. It is a guide to which judgments to read, not a judicial history: a judgment that discusses a case at length without one of those words is shown as citing it, and one mentioning several cases in a sentence may attach the word to all of them.

Only judgments in this index are counted, mostly the High Court, the Federal Court and New South Wales courts and tribunals since 2006. Earlier cases appear as authorities but their own authorities are unknown, so a tree ends there. Check a treatment by reading the passage before relying on it.

Judgment text is from the Open Australian Legal Corpus (Isaacus, CC BY 4.0) and the courts’ own websites. Each judgment links to its official version: read it before relying on anything here.