Dow Jones & Co. Inc. V Gutnick - Facts of This Case

Facts of This Case

The article on question was entitled Unholy Gains, by Bill Alpert, published in Barron's 2000 Oct 30. The Australian courts described the details of the article in their written opinion on the case, as follows:

" "states that some of his business dealings with religious charities raise "uncomfortable questions" . . . . The author then uses some language that the media have appropriated from the law courts, implying that a balanced trial with equal opportunity to participate by all concerned has taken place: that a "Barron's investigation found that several charities traded heavily in stocks promoted by Gutnick." . . . (emphasis added) The article associates the respondent with Mr Nachum Goldberg who is apparently a convicted tax evader and another person awaiting trial for stock manipulation in New York."

In court it was proven that only five copies of the Barron's print edition were sent from New Jersey to be circulated in Australia. The Internet version of the magazine had 550,000 international subscribers and 1700 Australian-based credit cards.

Geoffrey Robertson QC argued for the publisher Dow Jones, as to whether it was considered to be "published from" where it was uploaded in New Jersey or "published into" where it downloaded by subscribers in Victoria, Australia. The argument centered around publication and jurisdiction.