Volume I

Issue : 3: August 7, 2003

• New York Man Settles Invasion of Privacy Claim For $325,000.00
• Passage of U.S. Drug Import Bill benefits Internet Pharmacies
• Appeals Court Allows Claim For Conversion against Domain Name Registrar In Sex.com Litigation
• RIM Loses Patent-Infringement Ruling
• Recording Telephone Calls Without Customer Consent Contravenes PIPEDA
• Privacy Commissioner Rules Against Call Display
• Class Action Filed Against DoubleClick Over Advertising Banners
• Study Reveals Similar Privacy Practices in the U.S. and U.K. Despite Lack of Legislation in U.S.
• Red Hat Sues SCO Group - SCO Group Announces License Fees for Linux Users
• Canadian Lawful Access Consultation Report Released
• Australian Court Grants Hearing for Leave to Appeal in Internet Defamation Suit

Home > Volume I > Issue 3: August 7, 2003 > Australian Court Grants Hearing for Leave to Appeal in Internet Defamation Suit

Australian Court Grants Hearing for Leave to Appeal in Internet Defamation Suit

Following a High Court in-chambers hearing, Dow Jones was granted a hearing date as it seeks special leave to appeal an earlier Australian High Court decision. That decision struck out parts of Dow Jones's defence against a defamation suit by mining magnate Joseph Gutnick, paving the way for a November trial in Australia.

Gutnick is suing the U.S.-based global financial news service for defamation. Gutnick claims he was defamed in Dow Jones' web magazine Barron's Online, on a site hosted by the Wall Street Journal, from a server resident in New Jersey. Dow Jones argued that the action should not proceed in Gutnick's home state of Victoria, Australia, but rather in the U.S. The news service reasoned that material displayed on the Internet was published where it was uploaded, not where it was downloaded by readers around the world. Anyone who makes information available could be subjected to any jurisdiction.>

But the Australian High Court rejected that argument and concluded that defamation occurs at the place where damage to reputation occurs.

The Australian decision appears to be in contrast to a number of American cases and the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Canada in the case of Braintech, Inc. v. Kostiuk, which held that a Texas court did not have jurisdiction over the defendant as his mere posting of information did not meet the test for "substantial connection".

For a copy of the Gutnick decision, visit:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html

For a copy of Braintech, visit:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/99/01/c99-0169.txt