Gutnick v Dow Jones
|
|
On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down a judgment in the Internet defamation 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)
- Gary Chan, 'Internet Defamation and Choice of Law in Dow Jones v Gutnick (2003) Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 483 (http://law.nus.edu.sg/sjls/articles/SJLS-2003d-483.pdf)Template:AusLawStub