In what promises to be a landmark case for internet publishers, Gutnick v Dow Jones will be heard in Melbourne on 3 October, 2003.

This case concerns the appeal of one Joe Gutnick, a miner who claims he was defamed by the Wall Street Journal, in which it was stated that he was accused of money laundering. This follows a controversial decision in December last year to allow the case to be heard in Australia - the country in which the plaintiff resides - rather than the United States - the country in which the publisher's web server is located - a move which has interesting repercussions for internet media groups.

The key issue was whether the case should proceed in terms of United States defamation law, or whether the Australian understanding of the tort should be applied. American precedent suggests the plaintiff should be denied recovery; however, this defence was rejected by the High Court of Australia last December:

What this means is that internet publishers may need to consider not just laws relating to defamation from their own jurisdiction, but potentially all jurisdictions. Though only Australia has precedent to support this, in the future other common law jurisdictions may follow suit and hold publishers accountable on their own terms for libellous material accessible in their jurisdiction.

The majority of the High Court downplayed this burden, noting that:

This may be the case in many circumstances, but - and with respect - it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Detailed court reports to follow.