Mr. Joseph Gutnick, a prominent Australian businessman, was quite shocked when he came across some unflattering remarks about himself in an online article in :Barron’s
Some of Gutnick’s business dealings with religious charities raise uncomfortable questions. A investigation found that several charities traded heavily in stocksBarron’s promoted by Gutnick. Although the charities profited, other investors were left with heavy losses. . . . In addition, Gutnick has had dealings with Nachum Goldberg, who is currently serving five years in an Australian prison for tax evasion that involved charities.
In addition to tax evasion, Gutnick was accused of money laundering in that same article. Gutnick decided to file suit for libel. is owned by Dow Jones & Company, publisherBarron’s of the , which has its corporate headquarters in the United States. ButWall Street Journal Mr. Gutnick and his lawyers wanted to file the libel suit in his home country of Australia where the libel laws are quite strict. U.S. libel law puts the burden of proof on the alleged victim, but Australian law puts the burden of proof on the publisher.
Thus, Dow Jones sought to have the case heard in the United States, where Barron’s is written and disseminated. The company feared the precedent that would be set ifOnline
the case were heard in Australia. In the future, posting material online could leave them open to multiple lawsuits in many different jurisdictions. Accordingly, Dow Jones’ lawyers argued that the U.S. jurisdiction was the fairest place to hear this dispute. They also argued that Australian courts had no jurisdiction in this case.
But the High Court of Australia ruled that Gutnick could sue in his home state of Victoria, reasoning that this “is where the damage to his reputation of which he complains in his action is alleged to have occurred, for it is there that the publications of which he complains were comprehensible by readers.” According to Zittrain, the Australian High Court dismissed Dow Jones’ “pile on” argument “that Gutnick could next sue the company in Zimbabwe, or Great Britain, or China,” or wherever he read the allegedly libelous remarks. The court observed that Gutnick lived in Victoria and this was where the alleged harm occurred. It also noted that Dow Jones profited from the sale of toBarron’s Online Australians. Dow Jones eventually agreed to a settlement and issued a retraction.