DOW JONES & CO. INC. v GUTNICK International Business Law Spring 2012 Presenter: Sang Mi CHO Jin Hwa LEE

INDEX 1. FACTS 2. IRAC ISSUE RULE APPLICATION CONCLUSION 3. ANALYSIS 4. DISCUSSION Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick International Business Law

FACTS There was an article with defamatory statements of Mr. Joe Gutnick in Barron’s Online. (published by Dow Jones in Oct. 28, 2000) 1700 on-line subscribers in Australia (over half a million on-line subscribers) The article was published in the U.S., uploaded by internet web server in U.S. Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick International Business Law

FACTS Mr. Joe Gutnick, a businessman lived in Australia, damaged to his reputation. He sued Dow Jones as defamation in the Supreme Court of Victoria, in Australia. After receiving the writ and statement of claim, Dow Jones tried to nullify or stayed his action. → Dow Jones appealed to the High Court of Australia. Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick International Business Law

FACTS Diagram Article published Mr. Gutnick claimed (in Australia) Dow Jones appealed Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick International Business Law

ISSUE WHETHER the article “published” (by hard copy and on-line) in the United States is liable in Australian courts to find personal jurisdiction over Dow Jones? Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick International Business Law

RULE The general rules are Rule 7.01 of the Victorian Rules and Defamation Act 1974(NSW) Rule 7.01(1) of the Victorian Rules : (1) Originating process may be served out of Australia without order of the Court where - (i) the proceeding is founded on a tort committed within Victoria; (j) the proceeding is brought in respect of damage suffered wholly or partly in Victoria and caused by a tortious act or omission wherever occurring". Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick International Business Law

Dow JonesAustralian Court Publisher does not act on the Internet in order to reach a small target It is ubiquitous and is not “localized” The jurisdiction of Australia is not only inconvenient as a forum Using computers, people can communicate and gain information If publisher publishes in a multiplicity of jurisdiction, liability runs in those jurisdictions damage inflicted Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick International Business Law Jurisdiction should be in the U.S. Jurisdiction should be in Australia

APPLICATION Rule 7.01 explains whether tort of defamation has occurred in this case. Respondent had established jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Australia. Each of them affords “long-arm” jurisdiction to Victoria based on specified factual premises. Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick International Business Law

APPLICATION Par (i) addresses attention to the propounded foundation of the proceeding Par (j) shows that respondent had suffered damage in Victoria The respondent enjoys the advantage of properly constituted proceedings in an Australia court. The fact of U.S. are considered as irrelevant to the issue of jurisdiction. Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick International Business Law

CONCLUSION YES, Dow Jones held liable in Australian courts for defamatory story about a resident of Australia under the personal jurisdiction. Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick International Business Law

ANALYSIS This case could be the example for the further defamation conducted by commercial company. Still, the case was highly controversial and the subject of much commentary from legal analysts, particularly in the U.S. Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick International Business Law

DISCUSSION Infringement of the principle of press freedom and free exchange of information (Real intention of article to defame or criticize?) v Article made for profit What if Mr. Gutnick sued Dow Jones in U.S? Would it be change the result? (advantage of home legal system) Absence of deep investigation on Mr. Gutnick (What if the story is real?) Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick International Business Law

Thank you