December 2018
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Gutnick v Dow Jones; 28 Aug 2001

References: [2002] HCA 56, [2001] VSC 305
Links: Austlii
Coram: Callinan J
Ratio (High Court of Victoria) Callinan J said: ‘A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main attractions to users of it. And any person who gains access to the Internet does so by taking an initiative to gain access to it in a manner analogous to the purchase or other acquisition of a newspaper, in order to read it. . . If a publisher publishes in a multiplicity of jurisdictions it should understand, and must accept, that it runs the risk of liability in those jurisdictions in which the publication is not lawful and inflicts damage.’
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Gutnick v Dow Jones (Austlii, [2002] HCA 56)
    (High Court of Australia) The Court rejected a challenge, in the context of Internet libel, to the applicability of such established principles as that vouchsafed in Duke of Brunswick: ‘It was suggested that the World Wide Web was different from . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Gutnick v Dow Jones (Austlii, [2002] HCA 56)
    (High Court of Australia) The Court rejected a challenge, in the context of Internet libel, to the applicability of such established principles as that vouchsafed in Duke of Brunswick: ‘It was suggested that the World Wide Web was different from . .
  • Cited – Mardas v New York Times Company and Another QBD (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 3135 (QB))
    The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
    Held: The . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 26-Apr-16
Ref: 220027