1. DOW JONES & CO. INC. V GUTNICK
A Case of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

2. Outline Fact Pattern IRAC Arguments in Detail Issue Rule Application
Conclusion
Arguments in Detail

3. Fact Pattern Dow Jones - Appellant
U.S. firm, located in New Jersey; U.S.
Publisher of Barron’s magazine, which is available both as hard-copy and online
The servers of the website are located in New Jersey, too

4. Fact Pattern Gutnick - Respondent Resident of Melbourne, Australia
Businessman, involved in philanthropic, political, sporting and religious affairs on an international dimension

5. Fact Pattern
Dow Jones
Gutnick

6. Fact Pattern The Case October 28, 2000:
Barron’s magazine contained an article entitled “Unholy Gains” in which several allegedly defamatory statements were made regarding Mr. Joe Gutnick

7. Fact Pattern
The Case
Five copies of the print version were sent from the United States to Australia. Moreover, the internet version, which has over half a million subscribers, addressed some 1,700 online subscribers in Australia.

8. Fact Pattern
The Case
In response to the publishing, Gutnick brought suit against Dow Jones at an Australian Court, because of defamation that was caused by the article.
Thereupon, Dow Jones doubted the Australian Courts’ subject matter jurisdiction and applied to withdraw the suit.

9. Issue
The issue for the court is whether an Australian court holds subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

10. Rule
Choice of Law Rule
In order to decide which court has subject matter jurisdiction, in defamation proceedings the place of defamation (=place of the infliction of the damage) has to be identified.

11. Application Subject Matter Jurisdiction
To answer the question of subject matter jurisdiction it has to be determined at what moment defamation was caused:
either at the moment the article was published in the United States
or at the moment the article was finally read by its audience

12. Application
Defamation did not occur at the time of publishing, but rather when some third party read the publication and thereby thought less of Gutnick.

13. Conclusion
As defamation occurred in Australia, the place where the article was published and, thus, caused defamation, the Australian court holds subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

14. Arguments in Detail Dow Jones
In general, Dow Jones states that defamation occurs at the place where the matter is provided, or first published.

15. Arguments in Detail Dow Jones
In this case, Barron’s magazine was published in the United States and not in Australia.
Moreover, no act was committed in Australia that would ground jurisdiction of any Australian court.

16. Arguments in Detail Dow Jones
Supporting the above given arguments, Dow Jones goes more into detail:
It describes the Internet as no more than a means of communication by a set of interconnected computers.
What does the second point meen?

17. Arguments in Detail Gutnick
Internet as a set of interconnexions among computers all over the world to facilitate an exchange of messages.
Using their computers, people can communicate with one another, and gain access to information.
Gutnick
In contrast, and in support of Gutnick, the court refers to Barry Hammond and Dr Roger Clarke, highly qualified experts, who describe the Internet as a set of interconnexions among computers all over the world to facilitate an exchange of messages. Using their computers, people can communicate with one another, and gain access to information. The Internet is a unique communications system defying analogy with pre-existing technology.

18. Arguments in Detail Gutnick
A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it not to reach a small target. It is the Internet’s ubiquity, which is one of the main attractions to users of it.
And any person who gains access to the internet does so in order to gain certain information.
A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it not to reach a small target. It is the Internet’s ubiquity, which is one of the main attractions to users of it.
And any person who gains access to the internet does so in order to gain certain information.
If people whish to do business in different countries, they cannot expect to be absolved from the laws of these other countries.
In this case, that means that publication of a magazine in the U.S. that is accessible in Australia at the same time, may cause legal actions in Australia.
If a publisher publishes in a multiplicity of jurisdictions it should understand that it runs the risk of liability in those jurisdictions in which the publication is not lawful and it inflicts damages.

19. Arguments in Detail Gutnick
Moreover, if people whish to do business in different countries, they cannot expect to be absolved from the laws of these other countries.
In this case that means that publication of a magazine in the U.S. that is accessible in Australia at the same time, may cause legal actions in Australia.
Moreover, if a publisher publishes in a multiplicity of jurisdictions it should understand that it runs the risk of liability in those jurisdictions in which the publication is not lawful and it inflicts damages.

20. Arguments in Detail Gutnick
If a publisher publishes in a multiplicity of jurisdictions it should understand that it runs the risk of liability in those jurisdictions in which the publication is not lawful and it inflicts damages.

21. Thank You for Listening
Camila Shamuratova IES10283
Katja Wahle IES10286
Madina Baitova IES10302