The Dow Jones v Gutnick decision is just common sense

"Plaintiffs are unlikely to sue for defamation published outside the forum (the court's jurisdiction) unless a judgment obtained in the action would be of real value to the plaintiff. The value that a judgment would have may be much affected by whether it can be enforced in a place where the defendant has assets."

Joseph Gutnick has his home, business headquarters, family and social life in Victoria. In addition to this, he has restricted his claim to suing in Victoria only for the effect that the Internet publication has had on his reputation in Victoria. He is not suing the world at large. This could not occur in practice - a sentiment echoed in the High Court decision.

Dow Jones argued that the relevant jurisdiction for hearing this matter should be New Jersey, where the server for the Internet article is located. If this were accepted then absurd situations would arise.

For instance, a person defamed by an article appearing on the Internet would have to protect their reputation in the country hosting the relevant server, even though they may not be known there.

Furthermore, the United States, arguably the largest publisher on the Internet, would become the de facto forum for settling these types of disputes. Put another way, US laws would control the rights to one's reputation throughout the world.

For the High Court of Australia to decide otherwise would not have been in step with similar overseas decisions concerning the Internet.

Cases in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States have clearly shown that countries will determine Internet issues, such as where a publication occurs, by their own domestic standards rather than being influenced or dictated to by foreign laws.

The decision of the High Court was unanimous in dismissing the application made by Dow Jones. Nevertheless, the court is clearly sensitive to multi-jurisdictional issues characterised by Internet publications and has left the door open for any variation of its decision should the substantive facts of the Gutnick case differ at some time in the future.

In any event, the decision is clearly practical and one of common sense.

Hopefully, it will be the beginning of a more rational and measured approach to the effect the Internet has on the law - rather than encouraging some of the sometimes hysterical scenarios developed by some Internet commentators.