The argument was between the US-based business information organisation Dow Jones and an Australian entrepreneur, Joseph Gutnick. Mr Gutnick sued over an allegedly defamatory article about him that was posted by Dow Jones on its web site. The major question for the Victoria court was whether the case should be held in Australia or the US.
Mr Gutnick argued that because the article could be viewed in Australia, the hearing should be held where he was most defamed. Dow Jones argued that the article was written by an American, in the US, and intended for consumption in the US. Therefore, it should be held there.
Rejecting the arguments of Dow Jones, the court ruled that the hearing should go ahead in Victoria. In doing so, it asserted jurisdiction over a US article. It said that publication of an article occurs where it is read, not where it is produced.
The judge in the case wrote:
“To say that the country where the article is written, edited and uploaded and where the publisher does its business, must be the forum is an invitation to entrench the United States, the primary home of much of internet publishing, as the forum. [Dow Jones’] argument that it would be unfair for the publisher to have to litigate in the multitude of jurisdictions in which its statements are downloaded and read, must be balanced against the world-wide inconvenience caused to litigants, from Outer Mongolia to the Outer Barcoo, frequently not of notable means, who would at enormous expense and inconvenience have to embark upon the formidable task of suing in the USA”.