Google has been ordered to pay $40,000 in damages to a Melbourne lawyer after a Supreme Court of Victoria ruling found the internet giant was a publisher, and had defamed the man.

Key points: Lawyer George Defteros sued the internet company for defamation

Lawyer George Defteros sued the internet company for defamation Google had argued the automation of its search engines meant it was not a publisher

Google had argued the automation of its search engines meant it was not a publisher But Justice Melinda Richards found the search engine was "not a passive tool"

George Defteros has successfully sued Google over web searches that brought up his name in relation to associations with Victoria's gangland figures.

In today's ruling, Justice Melinda Richards has determined that Google was a publisher, despite denials by the company.

The case centred on articles and images published by The Age newspaper in 2004, after Mr Defteros was charged with conspiracy over the murder of Carl Williams and other underworld figures.

At the time, Mr Defteros ran a legal firm in Melbourne whose clients included gangland figures.

The charges were dropped the following year, but Mr Defteros had surrendered his practising certificate for three years.

Mr Defteros argued that in 2016 and 2017, searches on Google continued to turn up articles and hyperlinks to web material that defamed him, including an entry in the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

The charges against George Defteros were dropped in 2005. ( ABC News, file photo )

During a trial last year, Google's lawyers had argued it was not the publisher of the material and it had not defamed Mr Defteros.

It submitted that the automation of its search engines meant it was not an intentional communicator of words or images, particularly if a user clicked through to another website.

Justice Richards rejected this in her ruling today.

"The Google search engine … is not a passive tool," she wrote in her 98-page judgement.

"It is designed by humans who work for Google to operate in the way it does, and in such a way that identified objectionable content can be removed, by human intervention.

"I find that Google becomes a publisher of the search results that its search engine returns to a user who enters a search query."

She also found that providing the hyperlink within the search results "amounted to publication of the webpage".

Justice Richards found some of the images were still brought up in internet searches up until March of last year — but publication of those images was not "substantial".

Defamation at 'less serious end of the spectrum'

Google had argued in the case that it was for the "common convenience and welfare of society" that it provided search results directly relevant to search terms and that in fact it had a "duty" to respond to searches.

It also contended that there would be a "chilling effect on freedom of speech" if Google users were not able to readily locate relevant content.

"I could not be satisfied that it was reasonable for Google to rely on Wikipedia as a reputable source, given that its own Guidelines acknowledge the variable quality of Wikipedia pages," Justice Richards wrote.

Justice Richards found that linking to the articles amounted to publication. ( ABC News )

In assessing the damages relevant to the defamation, Justice Richards looked at how many users had seen the articles and images and found publication was "limited".

She also analysed the degree of defamation, which she said was at the "less serious end of the spectrum".

"I accept it was painful for Mr Defteros to be reminded of that time, which he has tried to put behind him," she wrote.

She also found that Mr Defteros was able to rebuild his legal practice.

The Age removed the material in late 2016.

In a statement, Mr Defteros said the decision was "a win towards restoring my reputation" but he was "disappointed with the amount of damages".

"Her Honour has found that Google is a publisher of the defamatory imputations once Google receives notice of a defamatory publication online as a result of the use of its search engine," he said.

"We are considering our position, and we will be taking advice from our legal team going forward."

Google said it was reviewing the decision.