The argument was between the US-based business information
organisation Dow Jones and an Australian entrepreneur, Joseph
Gutnick. Mr Gutnick sued over an allegedly defamatory article about
him that was posted by Dow Jones on its web site. The major
question for the Victoria court was whether the case should be held
in Australia or the US.
Mr Gutnick argued that because the article could be viewed in
Australia, the hearing should be held where he was most defamed.
Dow Jones argued that the article was written by an American, in
the US, and intended for consumption in the US. Therefore, it
should be held there.
Rejecting the arguments of Dow Jones, the court ruled that the
hearing should go ahead in Victoria. In doing so, it asserted
jurisdiction over a US article. It said that publication of an
article occurs where it is read, not where it is produced.
The judge in the case wrote:
“To say that the country where the article
is written, edited and uploaded and where the publisher does its
business, must be the forum is an invitation to entrench the United
States, the primary home of much of internet publishing, as the
forum. [Dow Jones’] argument that it would be unfair for the
publisher to have to litigate in the multitude of jurisdictions in
which its statements are downloaded and read, must be balanced
against the world-wide inconvenience caused to litigants, from
Outer Mongolia to the Outer Barcoo, frequently not of notable
means, who would at enormous expense and inconvenience have to
embark upon the formidable task of suing in the USA”.
The
decision of the Victoria Supreme Court
