geert lovink on Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:35:28 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> EFA: Australian Internet defamation ruling |
from: "Greg Taylor" <gtaylor@efa.org.au> subject: Australian Internet defamation ruling This case in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, could set an unfortunate precedent. Gutnick v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2001] VSC 305 (28 August 2001) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2001/305.html The case sought a determination about place of publication and therefore relevant jurisdiction in an Internet defamation action. Celebrity human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson appeared for the defence. A well-known plaintiff in Victoria, Australia (Joseph Gutnick) alleged defamation against a well-known defendant in the USA (Dow Jones & Co, publisher of Barrons Magazine and the Wall Street Journal), over publication of material on a website. The defendant argued that the place of publication was New Jersey, since that was where the website was based, and that the Victorian Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction. The judge has ruled that publication occurred in Victoria and that the court has jurisdiction to hear the case. The conclusion: 'Weighing up and balancing all of these factors, I reach a clear conclusion that the State of Victoria is both the appropriate forum and convenient forum for the disposition of the litigation commenced by the plaintiff. Many of the defendant's claimed difficulties are more imagined than real, but, at the end of the day, the most significant of the features favouring a Victorian jurisdiction is that the proceeding has been commenced by a Victorian resident conducting his business and social affairs in this State in respect of a defamatory publication published in this State, suing only upon publication in this State and disclaiming any form of damages in any other place. In my view, it would be verging on the extraordinary to suggest that Mr Gutnick's action in respect of that part of the publication on which he sues should be removed for determination to the State of New Jersey or the State of New York. To use the words of Lord Steyn in Berezovsky: "This Court having jurisdiction, it is manifestly just and reasonable that this Court should be the place where the defendant should answer for its wrongdoing." Accordingly, for all of these reasons, I refuse the defendant's application for a stay of this proceeding.' Greg Taylor Electronic Frontiers Australia www.efa.org.au # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net