GLEESON CJ, GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ
DOW JONES & COMPANY INC APPELLANT
AND
JOSEPH GUTNICK RESPONDENT
Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 10 December 2002 M3/2002
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria
Representation:
G R Robertson QC with T F Robertson SC for the appellant (instructed by Gilbert & Tobin)
J L Sher QC with M F Wheelahan for the respondent (instructed by Schetzer, Brott & Appel)
Intervener:
B W Walker SC with S E Pritchard intervening on behalf of Amazon.com Inc & Ors (instructed by Blake Dawson Waldron)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick
Torts – Defamation – Publication – Internet – Computer server – Material complained of housed on computer server in United States of America – Uploaded to World Wide Web – Viewable at subscription news site on World Wide Web – Downloaded to computer in Victoria – Whether material complained of was published in Victoria.
Torts – Defamation – Publication – Single publication rule.
Private international law – Choice of law – Law of the place of the tort (lex loci delicti) – Defamation – Damage to reputation – Where material complained of was published – Material complained of made comprehensible when downloaded in Victoria – Place of plaintiff's reputation – Victorian law governs substantive rights.
Private international law – Service out of jurisdiction – Rules of Court – Service permitted without leave of Court – Conditions of service – Action brought in respect of tort committed in Victoria – Action brought in respect of damage suffered in Victoria – Action limited to damage to reputation in Victoria – Service validly effected – Victoria a convenient forum.
Words and Phrases – "publication", "single publication rule".
GLEESON CJ, McHUGH, GUMMOW AND HAYNE JJ. The appellant, Dow Jones & Company Inc ("Dow Jones"), prints and publishes the Wall Street Journal newspaper and Barron's magazine. Since 1996, Dow Jones has operated WSJ.com, a subscription news site on the World Wide Web. Those who pay an annual fee (set, at the times relevant to these proceedings, at $US59, or $US29 if they are subscribers to the printed editions of either the Wall Street Journal or Barron's) may have access to the information to be found at WSJ.com. Those who have not paid a subscription may also have access if they register, giving a user name and a password. The information at WSJ.com includes Barron's Online in which the text and pictures published in the current printed edition of Barron's magazine are reproduced.
The edition of Barron's Online for 28 October 2000 (and the equivalent edition of the magazine which bore the date 30 October 2000) contained an article entitled "Unholy Gains"…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56
Case
[2002] HCA 56
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Dow Jones & Company Inc. appealed to the High Court of Australia concerning a defamation action brought by Mr. Gutnick. The dispute arose from an article published by Dow Jones in its magazine Barron's and also made available on its website. Mr. Gutnick alleged that the article, which contained statements he considered defamatory, was published in Victoria, where he resides and carries on business. The core of the appeal concerned whether the publication of the article on the internet constituted publication in Victoria for the purposes of defamation law.
The High Court was required to determine whether the material complained of, housed on a computer server in the United States and accessible via the internet, was legally considered published in Victoria when downloaded by a subscriber in that state. This involved questions of where a tort of defamation occurs in the context of internet publication, the application of the single publication rule, and the principles of private international law regarding the choice of law and service of process when the alleged tort occurs across jurisdictions.
The Court reasoned that publication of defamatory material occurs where the material is downloaded and made comprehensible to a third party. In the context of the internet, this means that publication occurs in every jurisdiction where the material is accessed and read. The Court applied the principle of *lex loci delicti*, holding that the law of the place where the tort is committed governs the substantive rights. As Mr. Gutnick's reputation was primarily in Victoria, and the defamatory material was downloaded and made comprehensible there, Victorian law applied. The Court also found that service of the writ out of the jurisdiction was validly effected, as the action was brought in respect of a tort committed and damage suffered in Victoria, and Victoria was considered a convenient forum.
The appeal was dismissed, with Dow Jones & Company Inc. ordered to pay Mr. Gutnick's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
The question which this case raises is whether the development of the Internet calls for a radical shift in the law of defamation.Facts The appellant publishes for profit the Wall Street Journal, a daily financial newspaper, and Barron's, a weekly magazine, which is also concerned with financial matters. The edition of Barron's dated Monday, 30 October 2000, but which was available publicly two days earlier, contained an article by a journalist working for the appellant, Bill Alpert, headed "Unholy Gains" and sub-headed "When stock promoters cross paths with religious charities, investors had best be on guard." A large photograph of the respondent appeared on the first page of the magazine. The article, of about 7,000 words, also contained photographs of other persons including Mr Nachum Goldberg. Barron's has a large circulation in the United States. Altogether, it was likely that 305,563 copies of the magazine were sold. A small number of them entered Australia, some of which were sold in Victoria. Barron's also put the article on the Internet. The relevant article appeared on the appellant's website on 29 October 2000. Subscribers who paid an annual fee were able to obtain access to that site at its address wsj.com. The site had about 550,000 subscribers. The appellant has an office that it calls a "corporate campus" in New Jersey where it has a web server on which its website is stored. It was conceded by the appellant that it could not identify the addresses of all of its subscribers but that 1,700 or so of them paid subscription fees by credit cards whose holders had Australian addresses. The respondent is a businessman. He is involved in philanthropic, political, sporting and religious affairs. His business activities have extended beyond Australia. He lives in Victoria and has many friends and associates there. He is the chairman of a corporation, shares in which are traded in the United States. He has sought investment in that corporation from investors in the United States. It is unnecessary to set out the whole of the article. The first three paragraphs sketch some of the interests of the respondent. The fourth states that some of his business dealings with religious charities raise "uncomfortable questions"[203]. The author then uses some language that the media have appropriated from the law courts, implying that a balanced trial with equal opportunity to participate by all concerned has taken place: that a "Barron's investigation found that several charities traded heavily in stocks promoted by Gutnick."[204] (emphasis added) The article associates the respondent with Mr Nachum Goldberg who is apparently a convicted tax evader and another person awaiting trial for stock manipulation in New York.[203]Alpert, "Unholy Gains", Barron's, 30 October 2000 at 24.[204]Alpert, "Unholy Gains", Barron's, 30 October 2000 at 24. A detailed discussion of various of the respondent's religious and political activities and business dealings follows. One paragraph of the article claims that an intercepted communication from the convicted tax evader was taken by Australian prosecutors to mean that the respondent was the former's "biggest money‑laundering customer"[205].[205]Alpert, "Unholy Gains", Barron's, 30 October 2000 at 30.The proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria