Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dow_Jones_&_Co_Inc_v_Gutnick an entity of type: Abstraction100002137
Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick was an Internet defamation case heard in the High Court of Australia, decided on 10 December 2002. The 28 October 2000 edition of Barron's Online, published by Dow Jones, contained an article entitled "Unholy Gains" in which several references were made to the respondent, Joseph Gutnick. Gutnick contended that part of the article defamed him. A key judgement was that the suit could be brought in Australia.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick
rdf:langString
Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick
xsd:integer
228331
xsd:integer
1100100437
xsd:integer
210
rdf:langString
Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick, Joseph
rdf:langString
Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick was an Internet defamation case heard in the High Court of Australia, decided on 10 December 2002. The 28 October 2000 edition of Barron's Online, published by Dow Jones, contained an article entitled "Unholy Gains" in which several references were made to the respondent, Joseph Gutnick. Gutnick contended that part of the article defamed him. A key judgement was that the suit could be brought in Australia.
xsd:date
2002-12-10
rdf:langString
' Existing principles of defamation law are that legal proceedings should be undertaken in the place where the communication is received, not where the communication is sent from. This applies equally to internet communications, despite the new nature of the technology. ( )
' In this case, involving information published on the Internet in the United States and read in the State of Victoria, Australia, the suitable jurisdiction for a court action is Victoria. ( )
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
8935