On 10 December2002, the High Court of Australia handed down a judgment in the Internetdefamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v. Dow Jones. The October 28, 2000 edition of Barron's Online, published by Dow Jones, contained an article entitled "Unholy Gains" in which several references were made to the respondent, Mr Joseph Gutnick. Mr Gutnick contended that part of the article defamed him. A key issue was whether suit could be brought in Australia.
The High Court's ruling effectively allows defamation plaintiffs in Australia to sue for defamation on the internet against any defendant irrespective of their location. "If people wish to do business in, or indeed travel to, or live in, or utilize the infrastructure of different countries, they can hardly expect to be absolved from compliance with the laws of those countries. The fact that publication might occur everywhere does not mean that it occurs nowhere," the court stated.
The case was highly controversial and the subject of much commentary from legal analysts, particularly in the United States.
On November 15, 2004, Dow Jones settled the case, agreeing to pay Mr. Gutnick some $440,000 in fees and damages.
External link
Full text of judgment (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/56.html)
DowJones sought leave to appeal the matter to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
DowJones was granted limited special leave to appeal to the High Court and the case was argued before the full bench of the High Court of Australia on the 28 May 2002.
A problem for DowJones here was that the article was uploaded in New Jersey, while the editorial control was exercised in New York, and DowJones did not really seem willing to decide which of these forums and consequently laws they argued to have the closest connection to the case.
Australian businessman Joseph Gutnick received an apology, read out to him in court by lawyers for his opponent, the US publishing group DowJones and Company.
Gutnick claimed the article, published in October 2000, defamed him, and he sued DowJones in Victoria, where his business is headquartered.
DowJones denied the defamation – saying Gutnick had misinterpreted the article; but it also argued that Australian courts did not have jurisdiction in the case.
Feeds |
Contact