1. Facts of the Case
Dow Jones & Company Inc., a U.S.-based publisher of the Wall Street Journal, also publishes a financial magazine called Barron’s, which is made available online via servers located in New Jersey, USA. In one of its online issues, it published an article titled “Unholy Gains”, which allegedly contained defamatory content about Joseph Gutnick, a businessman and resident of Victoria, Australia.
Although the content originated from the USA, it was accessible online globally, including in Australia. Joseph Gutnick claimed that the defamatory statements harmed his reputation in Victoria, where he was known and conducted his business. He filed a defamation suit in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, seeking damages.
Dow Jones raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Australian courts lacked jurisdiction since the publication and uploading occurred in the United States.
2. Issues in the Case
- Whether an Australian court can assume jurisdiction over a U.S.-based publisher for an article uploaded in the U.S. but accessible online in Australia?
- Where does defamation occur — at the place of uploading (USA) or the place of downloading and reputational harm (Australia)?
- Does the global accessibility of online content make publishers liable in every jurisdiction?
- What are the limits of international jurisdiction in internet-related defamation cases?
3. Legal Principles Covered
- Jurisdiction in Defamation Cases:
- Traditionally, defamation is considered to occur where the reputation is harmed — i.e., where the defamatory material is read and understood.
- High Court of Australia Decision (2002):
- The court ruled that publication occurs where the content is downloaded and comprehended, not where it is uploaded.
- Therefore, Australian courts had jurisdiction since the article was read and allegedly caused harm in Victoria.
- Lex loci delicti (law of the place where the tort occurred):
- In tort law, the applicable jurisdiction is often determined by where the damage took place.
- International Implications:
- The decision highlighted the risk for global publishers, who can be held accountable in any jurisdiction where their content is accessed and causes harm.
- Conflict of Laws / Private International Law:
- Courts consider factors such as place of harm, residency of the plaintiff, and purposeful targeting of the jurisdiction to decide on jurisdiction.
4. Possible Judgement
The High Court of Australia upheld the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria, allowing Joseph Gutnick’s defamation claim to proceed in Australia.
Key elements of the judgement:
- Dow Jones had reason to foresee that its content would be accessed in Australia.
- The alleged harm to reputation occurred in Victoria, making it a legitimate forum for the case.
- Jurisdiction was proper because the article was effectively published in Victoria when accessed and read there.
