On December 10, 2002, the
High Court of Australia issued its
decision in
Dow Jones v. Gutnick, affirming the jurisdiction of the courts in the Australian State of Victoria to try a suit brought by Mr. Gutnick against
Dow Jones for articles published by the latter on its Internet news service alleging that Mr. Gutnick was a money-launderer and tax evader.
The court considered the publisher's request to create a special rule for Internet defamation, but decided to uphold the pre-existing technology neutral rule that a statement is published where the recipient receives the statement and that jurisdiction may be exercised wherever a defamatory statement is published and the plaintiff's reputation is harmed. In the case of defamatory statements made on the Internet, the court held that Australia may exercise its jurisdiction over an out-of-country defendant that could reasonably know that the plaintiff had a reputation in Australia. Sufficient connections between the defendant and Australia arise as a question of enforcement of judgement, and not on the issue of choice of forum or choice of law.
By contrast, on December 13, 2002, the
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
opinion in
Young v. New Haven Advocate, holding that Virginia cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over two small Connecticut based newspapers and their employees for allegedly libellous statements against a Virginia prison warden posted on their websites. The court applied the standard laid out in
ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc., finding that the newspapers did not have sufficient minimal contact with Virginia because they did not manifest an intent to aim their websites at a Virginia audience.
For the full text of the High Court of Australia decision in
Dow Jones v. Gutnick, visit:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html
For the full text of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in
Young v. New Haven Advocate, visit:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012340.P.pdf
Disclaimer: This Newsletter is intended to provide readers with general information on legal developments in the areas of e-commerce, information technology and intellectual property. It is not intended to be a complete statement of the law, nor is it intended to provide legal advice. No person should act or rely upon the information contained in this newsletter without seeking legal advice.
E-TIPS is a registered trade-mark of Deeth Williams Wall LLP.