Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:21:26.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jurisdiction Over Cross-Border Wrongs On The Internet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Oren Bigos
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The internet presents challenges for private international law. One challenge relates to jurisdiction, which is traditionally based on territory. Transactions on the internet span many borders. When cross-border wrongs are committed they may lead to transnational litigation. This article examines the circumstances in which a court can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign defendant alleged to have committed a civil wrong over the internet. Section I examines the background to jurisdiction and the internet and sets the scope of the topic. Section n gives a brief summary of the internet and its applications. Section HI examines jurisdictional rules in civil wrongs cases.The focus is on two sets of rules commonly applied around the globe: the service abroad provisions and the special jurisdiction provisions. Section IV aims to apply those jurisdictional rules to cases of wrongs committed on the internet. It advances general principles, applicable in cases of cross-border wrongs committed on the internet, relating to the place where a wrong is committed and the place where damage is suffered. Defamation has its own peculiarities and is discussed separately. The issue of whether a court can grant an injunction against a foreign defendant in respect of foreign conduct is explored. The article concludes (in Section V) that existing jurisdictional rules need not be amended in light of the internet, and offers general statements about how jurisdictional rules apply to wrongs committed on the internet.

Type
Research Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 585 - 620
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ie non-appellate.Google Scholar

2 Brownlie, IPrinciples of Public International Law (6th ednOUP Oxford 2003) 297.Google Scholar

3 Extra territoriumjus dicenti, impune non paretur (one who exercises jurisdiction out of his territory may be disobeyed with impunity): Singh v The Rajah of Faridkote [1894] AC 670, 683 (PC).Google Scholar

4 The claimant must follow the forum of the thing in dispute. SeePhillimore, RCommentaries upon International Law (3rd ednButterworths London 1879) vol 4 § 891.Google Scholar

5 Lenders v Anderson (1883) 12 QBD 50, 56; Ingate v La Commissione de Lloyd Austriaco, Prima Sezione (1858) 4 CB NS 704, 708 (CP); Trower & Sons Ltd v Ripstein [1944] AC 254, 262 (PC); Pennoyer v Neff 95 US 714, 722 (1877).Google Scholar

6 Nygh, P ‘The Common Law Approach’ in McLachlan, C and Nygh, P (eds) Transnational Tort Litigation: Jurisdictional Principles (Clarendon Press Oxford 1996) 21, 26.Google Scholar

7 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v Woodson 444 US 286, 294 (1980).Google Scholar

8 Though note the dangers associated with using that term: Hyde v Agar; Worsley v Australian Rugby Football Union Ltd (1998) 45 NSWLR 487; [1998] NSWSC 451 on appeal (2000) 201 CLR552, 570ff(HCA).Google Scholar

9 McLachlan, C ‘An Overview’ in McLachlan and Nygh above n 6 at 1, 10–11.Google Scholar

10 Dicey, AVThe Conflict of Laws (Stevens & Sons London 1896) 237–9.Google Scholar

11 Singh (above n 3) 684. The cautious approach adopted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was due to the lack of comity entailed in asserting jurisdiction over a foreigner and fear of retaliation by foreign governments offended by an excessive claim of jurisdiction over their nationals: Coffins, LEssays in International Litigation and the Conflict of Laws (Clarendon Press Oxford 1994) 227–30.Google Scholar

12 Nygh, above n 6 at 30.Google Scholar

13 McLachlan, above n 9 at 11.Google Scholar

14 Cf Pavlovich v Superior Court 109 Cal Rptr 2d 909, 916 (CalApp 2001).Google Scholar

15 In this article, which looks at common law jurisdictions generally, the term ‘claimant’ is used rather than ‘plaintiff’.Google Scholar

16 Briggs, AThe Conflict of Laws ((OUP Oxford 2002) 2.Google Scholar

17 ‘Developments-Law of Cyberspace’ (1999) 112 Harvard L Rev 1574, 1700.Google Scholar

18 Others include identifying and locating the defendant, serving process on the defendant, resisting any anti-suit injunction or declaration of non-liability which the defendant seeks elsewhere, determining and proving the governing law, enforcing judgments against the defendant in a place where the defendant has assets, and of course the high costs of the litigation.Google Scholar

19 Hamdani, A ‘Who's liable for cyberwrongs?’ (2002) 87 Cornell L Rev 901,903Google Scholar; Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001] QB 201 (QBD).

20 Birks, P ‘The concept of a civil wrong’ in Owen, D (ed) Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law (Clarendon Press Oxford 1995) 31Google Scholar; Burrows, AThe Law of Restitution (2nd ednButterworths LexisNexis London 2002) 457–8;Google ScholarEdelman, JGain-Based Damages (Hart Publishing Oxford 2002) ch 2.Google Scholar

21 eg in Metall und Rohstqff AG v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc [1990] 1 QB 391, 474–81 (CA) the Court did not treat a claim for restitution arising from procuring breach of trust as a tort claim for jurisdictional purposes.Google Scholar

22 eg dissemination of racist material, email stalking, dissemination of pornographic material, online gambling, computer fraud, and abuse.Google Scholar

23 eg public, taxation, competition, banking, securities, migration, and family law.Google Scholar

24 Hence it does not deal with the wrongs of breach of contract (or other contractual claims), breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty.Google Scholar

25 eg Scots law: Gloag and Henderson on the Law of Scotland ((11th ednW Green & Son Edinburgh 2001) [31.01]Google Scholar; Walker, DMDelict (2nd ednW Green & Son Edinburgh 1981) 3–8.Google Scholar

26 Bochan v LaFontaine 68 F Supp 2d 692 (EDVa 1999); MR Osinski ‘Personal jurisdiction and internet torts’ 80 U Detroit Mercy L Rev 249 (2003); Hamdani above n 19.Google Scholar

27 ie including another website's protected key words in a website's code to increase the popularity of the website being accessed.Google Scholar

28 eg interception of private emails, sending junk emails, using internet cookies to identify the website user.Google Scholar

29 eg placing indiscreet photos on a website.Google Scholar

30 ie unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness or other personal information.Google Scholar

31 Programmers prefer to use the term ‘cracking’ instead.Google Scholar

32 eg ‘email bombing’ (defendant repeatedly sends an email to a particular victim's email address in order to consume system resources); ‘email spamming’ (defendant sends bulk junk emails to multiple victims); ‘email spoofing’ (ie defendant alters his email account's identity and engages in bombing or spamming); ‘flaming’ (electronic hate mail).Google Scholar

33 American Civil Liberties Union v Reno 929 F Supp 824, 830 (EDPa 1996); Gralla, PHow the Internet Works (7th ednQue Publishing Indianapolis 2004) 11, 15–17.Google Scholar The basic pair of protocols shared by computers connected to the internet are: (i) Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), which includes rules on establishing and breaking connections; and (ii) Internet Protocol (IP), which includes rules for routing of information and rules for assigning a unique numeric address (IP address) to each networked computer, enabling other networked computers to identify and locate it within the shared address space. See Tanenbaum, ASComputer Networks (4th ednPrentice Hall PTR New Jersey 2003) 436–7, 532 ff.Google Scholar

34 Tanenbaum above n 33 ch 2; Gralla above n 33 at 36–41.Google Scholar

35 Perritt, HH JrLaw and the Information Superhighway (John Wiley & Sons New York 1996) §1.2.Google Scholar

36 Particularly in the past decade.Google Scholar

37 Though attempts are being made at international coordination of internet governance issues, eg International Chamber of Commerce Issues Paper on Internet Governance (ICC Paris 2004).Google Scholar

38 Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2003) 210 CLR 575, 597 [14] (HCA) (evidence of Dr Clarke, an internet expert).Google Scholar

39 Smith, GJHInternet Law and Regulation (3rd ednSweet & Maxwell London 2002) [1–003], [1–001].Google Scholar

40 Gutnick above n 38 at 618 [86].Google Scholar

41 eg Libya and Syria, which do not allow public access to the internet; Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates, which impose censorship: Human Rights Watch The internet in the Mideast and North Africa-Free Expression and Censorship (Human Rights Watch Washington 1999) 1Google Scholar; China: ‘Developments’ (n 48) 1680–1; Cuba: Resolution 180\2003.

42 Gutnick above n 38 at 617 [83].Google Scholar

43 ibid 618 ‘86’. However in Ligue Contre la Racisme et L'Antisemitisme & L'Union des Etudiants Juifs de France v Yahoo! Inc & Yahoo! France (TGI Paris, 22 mai 2000 et 20 novembre 2000, procedures n° 00/05308, 00/5309) the defendant was required to employ geographic filtering technologies to identify website users and limit access to content in certain places: A Monopoulos ‘Raising ‘Cyber-Borders’: The interaction between law and technology’ (2003) 11 Intl JL & Information Technology 41-3.

44 Walker, C, Wall, D, and Akdeniz, Y(eds) The Internet, Law and Society (Pearson Essex 2000) 3.Google Scholar

45 Gibson, WNeuromancer (Gollancz London 1984) 51 first used ‘cyberspace’ to refer to the realm of communications networks that operate through computers.Google Scholar

46 Johnston, DR and Post, DG ‘Law and Borders—The Rise of Law in Cyberspace’ 48 Stanford L Rev 1367 (1996).Google Scholar

47 Reed, CInternet Law: Text and Materials (Butterworths London 2000) [7.1.1].Google Scholar

48 Fitzgerald, B ‘Casenote on Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick: Negotiating “American Legal Hegemony” in the transnational world of cyberspace‘ (2003) 27 Melbourne UL Rev 590, 590–1.Google Scholar

49 Smith above n 39 [1–003’, [1–016].Google Scholar

50 Gralla above n 33 132–3, 161–3.Google Scholar

51 ibid 135–7. To request a particular web page stored on a server, the user may (i) type the uniform resource locator (URL) of the web page into his browser, which identifies the data transfer protocol to use (for WWW the protocol is http), the IP address of the server and the website and the path and file name, or (ii) more commonly, type the plain language address (domain name) of the website where the web page is stored, or the domain name of the main access point for a collection of websites for a particular organization (home page), which is translated into a URL (and the home page may be navigated in order to find a particular web page), or (iii) if he cannot easily identify the particular web page, use the browser to navigate (surf) the web and click on a hypertext link (hyperlink), one of the many software links in the web's mesh that join web pages to each other, and this contains a URL for the web page.

52 Gralla above n 33 at 23; Tanenbaum above n 33 at 615.Google Scholar

53 ibid at 615, 618.

54 Sometimes other unrequested websites may appear (pop-ups), though they can be filteredout.Google Scholar

55 ibid 618–19.

56 ibid 615, 618.

57 This step is colloquially called ‘downloading’, though technically downloading occurs beforehand on receipt of data.Google Scholar

58 Perritt above n 35 § 1.2.Google Scholar

59 Gralla above n 33 90-3; Tanenbaum above n 33 592–4. The mail server is usually the sender's local internet service provider (ISP).Google Scholar

60 PiggOtt, FTService Out of the Jurisdiction (William Clowes & Sons London 1892) 1vii.Google Scholar

61 Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws (13th ednSweet & Maxwell London 2000) [11R–001].Google Scholar

62 Piggott above n 60 lviii–lxiii.Google Scholar

63 Starting with the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 (UK) 15 and 16 Viet c 76.Google Scholar

64 Section 18.Google Scholar

65 Section 19.Google Scholar

66 Re Eager; Eager v Johnstone (1883) 22 Ch D 86, 87 (CA).Google Scholar

67 Maclean v Dawson (1859) 4 De G & J 150, 45 ER 58; Société Générale de Paris v Dreyfus Brothers (1885) 29 Ch D 239, 243.Google Scholar

68 RSC 1920 Ord XI r 1 (ee).Google Scholar

69 CPR r 6.20(8).Google Scholar

70 The wording since 2000.Google Scholar

71 The wording between 1920 and 2000.Google Scholar

72 Briggs, A and Rees, PCivil Jurisdiction and Judgments (3rd ednLLP London 2002) [4.39]Google Scholar; Metall (n 21) 437, 441; cf Civil Procedure: The White Book Service (Sweet & Maxwell London 2003) vol 1 [6.21.39].Google Scholar

73 Other peripheral grounds are not dealt with in this article (eg where the defendant is a necessary and proper party).Google Scholar

74 eg Supreme Court Rules (General Civil Procedure) 1996 (Vic) r 7.01(l)(i); Rules of Court (BC) r 13(l)(h).Google Scholar

75 eg Federal Court of Australia Rules (Cth) r 8.01(b).Google Scholar

76 eg Rules of Court (Alta) r 30(q).Google Scholar

77 eg Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (NSW) r 10.1A(l)(a); Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 124(l)(a).Google Scholar

78 eg Victorian Rules (above n 74) r 7.01(l)(k); British Columbia Rules (above n 74) r 13(l)(i). The conduct being any act that would amount to an infringement of the claimant's rights in the forum: James North & Sons Ltd v North Cape Textiles Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 1428, 1431-3 (CA).Google Scholar

79 eg German Code of Civil Procedure §32.Google Scholar

80 eg the ‘double actionability’ rule in Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356 (HL). cf the proposed EU Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations ('Rome IT), Art 3(1), which looks at the place of damage rather than the place of the wrong.Google Scholar

81 Webb, PRH and North, PM ‘Thoughts on the place of commission of a non-statutory tort’ (1965) 14 ICLQ 1314, 1357.Google Scholar

82 David Syme & Cov Grey (1992) 38 FCR 303, 314.Google Scholar

83 eg if the ‘double actionability’ rule is not satisfied then the claim cannot proceed in that court, regardless of the court having jurisdiction.Google Scholar

84 Dreyfus Brothers above n 67 at 242–3.Google Scholar

85 Johnson v Taylor Bros & Co Ltd [1920] AC 144, 153 (HL); Kroch v Rossell & Cie SPRL [1937] 1 All ER 725, 728 (CA); George Monro Ltd v American Cyanamid & Chemical Corp [1944] KB 432, 437 (CA).Google Scholar

86 Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Thompson [1971] AC 458, 467 (PC).Google Scholar

87 ibid 466; Moron v Pyle National (Canada) Ltd [1975] 1 SCR 393; (1973) 43 DLR (3d) 239; Webb and North above n 81.

88 Distillers above n 86.Google Scholar

89 Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (American Law Institute Publishers St Paul 1971) §145.Google Scholar

90 Beale, JHThe Conflict of Laws (Baker Voorhis & Co New York 1935) §377.2.Google Scholar

91 Rabel, EThe Conflict of Laws (2nd ednUniversity of Michigan Law School Boston 1958) vol 2 303–4.Google Scholar

92 Distillers (above n 86) 466–8. See also: Jackson v Spittall (1870) LR 5 C P 542, 552; George Monro n 85 440–1; My v Toyota Motor [1977] 2 NZLR 113, 116-17 (NZHC); Castree v ER Squibb & Sons Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 1248, 1252 (CA); Multinational Gas & Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas & Petrochemical Services Ltd [1983’ Ch 258, 267, 272 (CA); Metall above n 21 443.Google Scholar

93 Voth v Manildra Flour Mills (1990) 171 CLR 538, 567 (HCA).Google Scholar

94 Cordova Land Co Ltd v Victor Bros Inc [1966] 1 WLR 793; Distillers above n 86.Google Scholar

95 Distillers above n 86 at 468.Google Scholar

96 ibid 469; George Monro above n 85 at 439.

97 Metall above n 21 at 449.Google Scholar

98 Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 589, 597 (CA).Google Scholar

99 Jackson n 82 552; Vaughan v Weldon (1874) LR 10 CP 47; Distillers above n 86 467–8; George Monro above n 85 440, 441; Metall above n 21 437; Voth above n 93 567; Buttigeig v Universal Terminal & Stevedoring Corp [1972[ VR 626; MacGregor v Application de Gaz [1976] Qd R 175.Google Scholar

100 Cf Case C-256\00 Besix SA v Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG [2002] ECR1-1699 [34]–[35[.Google Scholar

101 Voth above n 93 at 567.Google Scholar

102 Distillers above n 86 at 469.Google Scholar

103 eg fixed and mobile telephones, telex, fax, radio, television (broadcasts, cable, satellite), and internet.Google Scholar

104 Voth above n 93 567-8.Google Scholar

105 eg Gutnick above n 38 at 630 [125].Google Scholar

106 Schlosser, P ‘Product Liability’ in McLachlan and Nygh above n 6 at 59, 78.Google Scholar

107 Original Blouse Co Ltd v Bruck Mills Ltd (1963) 42 DLR (2d) 174, 181–2 (BCSC); Diamond v Bank of London & Montreal Ltd [1977] QB 333, 345-6 (CA); The Albaforth [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep 91, 96 (CA); Paper Products Pty Ltd v Tomlinsons (Rochdale) Ltd (1993) 122 ALR 279, 287-8 (FCA); Sydbank Soenderjylland AIS v Bannerton Holdings Pty Ltd (1996) 68 FCR 539, 547-8; Strike v Dive Queensland Inc (1998) ATPR 41-605, [1997] FCA 1429; Ramsey v Vogler [2000] NSWCA 260 [36’–[48]; Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (2002) 190 ALR 1; [2002] FCA 243 [147]; Ennstone Building Products Ltd v Stanger Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 3059, 3071-2, [2002] EWCA Civ 916 [48].Google Scholar

108 ibid Diamond 345–6.

109 Postcards: Toner v Hawkins (1885) 15 QBD 650, 680; radio broadcast: JennervSun Oil Co [1952] 2 DLR 526, 535, 537 (OntHCJ); television broadcast: Pindling v National Broadcasting Corp (1985) 14 DLR (4th) 391, 396 (OntHCJ); magazine: Berezovsky v Michaels [2000’ 1 WLR 1004, 1012, 1018, 1026 (HL).Google Scholar

110 Norbert Steinhardt v Meth (1961) 105 CLR 440, 442 (HCA).Google Scholar

111 Composers Authors and Publishers Assoc of Canada Ltd v International Good Music Inc [1963] SCR 136, 143-4; (1963) 37 DLR (2d) 1, 8.Google Scholar

112 WIC Premium Television Ltd v General Instrument Corp (2000) 266 AR 142 [18] (AltaCA).Google Scholar

113 Diamond above n 107.Google Scholar

114 Voth above n 93 at 568.Google Scholar

115 ibid.

116 eg Morin v Bonhams & Brooks Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 702 (CA), a choice of law case where it was held ([19’) that reliance was a continuum of activity, and the most significant aspect occurred where a purchase was made in reliance on false information.Google Scholar

117 Council Regulation (EC) 44\2001 of 22 Dec 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters [2000] OJ LI 2 (‘Judgments Regulation’) applies in the Member States of the European Union except Denmark. Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 27 Sept 1968 (consolidation available at [1998] OJ C27\1) (‘Brussels Convention’) applies in the Member States of the European Union including Denmark. Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 16 Sept 1988 [1988] OJ L319\9 (‘Lugano Convention’) applies in all the Member States of the EU, including Denmark, as well as Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland. An international instrument applying also outside Europe was contemplated along similar lines (The draft Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Interim Text 20 June 2001, amending the preliminary draft convention adopted by the Special Commission on 30 Oct 1999) but seems to have been abandoned for now, though there may be prospects for consensus on a modified draft (WE O'Brien Jr ‘The Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments: The way forward’ (2003) 66 MLR 491).Google Scholar

118 Art 4(1) in the Judgments Regulation, Brussels Convention and Lugano Convention.Google Scholar

119 Art 2(1) in the Judgments Regulation, Brussels Convention and Lugano Convention.Google Scholar

120 eg French Code of Civil Procedure Art 46.Google Scholar

121 Art 5(3) in the Judgments Regulation, Brussels Convention and Lugano Convention.Google Scholar

122 Case 189/87 Kalfelis v Schroeder Muenchmeyer Hengst & Co [1988] ECR 5565, 5585 [17]; Case C-261/90 Reichert v Dresdner Bank AG (No 2) [1992] ECR I-2149 [19].Google Scholar

123 Kalfelis above n 122 5585 [16].Google Scholar

124 Briggs and Rees above n 72 [2.143].Google Scholar

125 Casio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo [2001] EWCA Civ 661 [16].Google Scholar

126 Case C-334/00 Tacconi v Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH [2002] ECR 7357 [27].Google Scholar

127 Jenard Report on the Brussels Convention [1979] OJ C59/26.Google Scholar

128 Wolff, MPrivate International Law (2nd ednOUP Oxford 1950) §65.Google Scholar

129 Case 21/76 Bier v Mines de Potasse d'Alsace [1976] ECR 1735.Google Scholar

130 ibid [11].

131 Diamond above n 107 345–6.Google Scholar

132 Domicrest Ltd v Swiss Bank Corp [1999] QB 548; Alfred Dunhill Ltd v Diffusion Internationale de Maroquinerie de Prestige SARL [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 950, 956, 958, 962.Google Scholar

133 Berezovsky above n 109.Google Scholar

134 Case C-68/93 Shevill v Presse Alliance SA [1995] ECR 415.Google Scholar

135 NSW and Ontario had enacted a separate ‘damage suffered’ ground earlier, but this was not as a consequence of Bier.Google Scholar

136 Metall above n 21 437.Google Scholar

137 Schlosser above n 106 7 7–8.Google Scholar

138 Later adopted in much of the British Commonwealth.Google Scholar

139 eg Victorian Rules above n 75 r 7.01(1)(j); Rules of Civil Procedure 1990 (Can) r 17.02(h).Google Scholar

140 eg Federal Court of Australia Rules (Cth) r 8.01(c).Google Scholar

141 CPRr 6.20(8).Google Scholar

142 Vile v Von Wendt (1979) 103 DLR (3d) 356, 361–2 (OntHCJ); Flaherty v Girgis (1985) 4 NSWLR 248, 266–7 (NSWCA); The ‘Katowice I’ (1990) 25 NSWLR 568, 577 (NSWSC).Google Scholar

143 Bier above n 129 [11].Google Scholar

144 Shevill above n 134.Google Scholar

145 Berezovsky above n 109.Google Scholar

146 Gutnick above n 38.Google Scholar

147 Domicrest above n 132 at 568.Google Scholar

148 Diamond above n 107.Google Scholar

149 Mecklermedia Corp v DC Congress GmbH [1998] Ch 40, 48.Google Scholar

150 Case C-220/88 Dumez France and Tracoba v Hessische Landesbank (Helaba) [1990] ECR 1–49, 80 [20]–[22].Google Scholar

151 H van Houtte ‘Securities’ in McLachlan and Nygh above n 6 at 155, 167.Google Scholar

152 Case C-364/93 Marinari v Lloyds Bank pic and Zubaidi Trading Co [1995] ECR 2719 [14].Google Scholar

153 p Nygh ‘Transnational Fraud’ in in McLachlan and Nygh (above n 6) 83, 100–1.Google Scholar

154 AD Haines ‘The impact of the internet on the Judgments Project: thoughts for the future’ (Hague Conference on Private International Law, Preliminary Document No 17, Feb 2002).Google Scholar

155 Johnson, DR and Post, DG “The Rise of Law on the Global Network’ in Kahin, B and Nesson, C (eds) Borders in Cyberspace: Information Policy and the Global Information Infrastructure (MTT Press Cambridge MA 1997) 3, 6–12.Google Scholar

156 Hamilton, RW and Castanias, GA ‘Tangled web: personal jurisdiction and the internet’ (1998) 24 Litigator (ABA) 27Google Scholar

157 Burk, DL ‘Jurisdiction in a world without borders’ (1997) 1 Virginia JL & Technology 3.Google Scholar

158 Kohl, U ‘Eggs, jurisdiction and the internet’ (2002) 51 ICLQ 555, 557.Google Scholar

159 Menthe, D ‘Jurisdiction in cyberspace: A theory of international spaces’ (1998) 4 Michigan Telecommunications Technology L Rev 69.Google Scholar

160 Kaufmann-Kohler, G ‘Internet: mondialisation de la communication—mondialisation des litiges?’ in Boele-Woelki, K and Kessedjian, CInternet—Which court decides? Which law applies? (Kluwer Hague 1998) 89, 119.Google Scholar

161 Edeshaw, A ‘Web services and the law: A sketch of the potential issues’ (2003) 11 Intl JL & Information Technology 251, 272.Google Scholar

162 Longworth, E ‘The possibilities for a legal framework for cyberspace—including a New Zealand perspective’ in Fuentes-Camacho, T (ed) The International Dimensions of Cyberspace Law (Ashgate Hampshire and UNESCO Paris 2000) 9, 38.Google Scholar

163 Reed, A ‘Jurisdiction and choice of law in a borderless electronic environment’ in Akdeniz, Y, Walker, C, and Wall, D (eds) The Internet, Law and Society (Pearson Essex 2000) 79Google Scholar; Stein, AR ‘The unexceptional problem of jurisdiction in cyberspace’ (1998) 32 Intl Lawyer 1167Google Scholar; Dutson, S ‘The Internet, the conflict of laws, international litigation and intellectual property’ [1997] JBL 495, 496.Google Scholar

164 Pro-C Ltd v Computer City Inc (2001) 205 DLR (4th) 568, 574 (OntCA).Google Scholar

165 Reed, C (above n 47) [7.1.3].Google Scholar

166 ibid [7.3.1.6].

167 ibid.

168 Location of wrongs committed on international flights or sea-voyages was discussed in Lord, McNairThe Law of the Air (3rd ednStevens & Sons London 1964) 260–70, 281–3;Google ScholarDuckworth, LThe Principles of Marine Law (4th ednPitman & Sons London 1930) 30–1.Google Scholar

169 Collectively the ‘relevant exorbitant jurisdiction rules’.Google Scholar

170 Gutnick above n 38 601 [28], 606 [43]; Diamond above n 107 346.Google Scholar

171 LexisNexis—International Bar Association Legal Survey (2003) s 3.

172 Distillers above n 86 at 467.Google Scholar

173 If at all-eg Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (UK) s ll(2)(c) contains a choice of l aw formulation that does not look at locus delicti.Google Scholar

174 Australian Law Reform Commission Choice of Law (Report No 58 1992) [50]–[59]. This recommendation has not been adopted, cf Rome II (above n 81) Art 3(1); Donahue v Warner Bros 194 F 2d 6, 22 (10th Cir 1952).Google Scholar

175 Although different laws might apply to different issues: Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (UK) s 12(1).Google Scholar

176 eg where the cause of action arose, where the event giving rise to damage occurred.Google Scholar

177 It would also apply in determining the place where the wrong occurred for the purposes of the draft Hague Convention (2001 version) Art 10(l)(a).Google Scholar

178 Identified above as the place where, in substance, the defendant acts.Google Scholar

179 In the case of an omission, the act of the defendant can be localized in the context of which the omission assumes significance.Google Scholar

180 Explained above as the transmission and placement of a web page in the storage area of a server.Google Scholar

181 As argued by defendant in United States v Thomas 74 F 3d 701 (6th Cir 1996).Google Scholar

182 JC Ginsburg ‘Private international law aspects of the protection of works and objects of related rights transmitted through digital networks’ (GCPIC/2 WIPO 30 Nov 1998) 18.Google Scholar

183 CPR r 6.20(8).Google Scholar

184 Distillers above n 86 at 468.Google Scholar

185 Cf Bonnier Media Ltd v Smith 2003 SC 56 [18]–[19] (CtSess).Google Scholar

186 Gutnick (n 38) 606 [43].Google Scholar

187 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Hughes (2002) ATPR 41–863; [2002] FCA 270 [78].Google Scholar

188 Domicrest above n 132.Google Scholar

189 Diamond above n 107.Google Scholar

190 Though it may still be suitable for choice of law.Google Scholar

191 As in most English common law jurisdictions.Google Scholar

192 Particularly on websites, but also emails sent to recipients with an unknown location.Google Scholar

193 Voth above n 93 at 568.Google Scholar

194 Nimmer on Copyright (Matthew Bender 1982) vol 3 §17.02Google Scholar; Laddie, H, Prescott, P, and Vitoria, MThe Modern Law of Copyright and Designs (2nd ednButterworths London 1995) [24.19]Google Scholar; Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (14th ednSweet & Maxwell London 1999) vol 1 [22–49]Google Scholar; Jooris, E ‘Infringement of foreign copyright and the jurisdiction of English courts’ [1996] EIPR 127, 140Google Scholar; cf Fawcett, J and Torremans, PIntellectual Property and Private International Law (OUP Oxford 1998) 164, 623.Google Scholar

195 In some States lawmakers expressly reverse this principle, eg in China copyright is infringed at the computer terminal on which the claimant discovered the infringement: Interpretation of Several Issues Relating to Adjudication of and Application of Law to Cases of Copyright Disputes on Computer Networks (Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People's Court of China, 1144th meeting, 21 Dec 2000) Art 1. In other States lawmakers expressly define jurisdiction in intellectual property wrongs over the internet, eg Australia and the US have agreed to confer jurisdiction on the courts of the place where the infringer or his I SP is located: Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States, the Exchange of Letters on I SP Liability.Google Scholar

196 International Good Music above n 111 at 143-4.Google Scholar

197 Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Assoc of Internet Providers (2004) 240 DLR (4th) 193, 214 [43] (SCC).Google Scholar

198 Such cases arise less frequently following the adoption of the Uniform Domain Names Dispute Resolution Policy by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the enactment of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act 1999 (US) (15 USC §1125(d)) giving in rem jurisdiction over domain names.Google Scholar

199 Bensusan Restaurant Corp v King 937 F Supp 295, 299 (SDNY 1996), affd 126 F 3d 25 (2nd Cir 1997); Pro-C (above n 164) 573–4; New Zealand Post Ltd v Leng [1999] 3 NZLR 219, 230–1 (NZHC); 800-Flowers Trade Mark [2000] FSR 697, 705 (ChD); 800-Flowers Trade Mark [2002] FSR 191, 220–1; [2001] EWCA Civ 721 [136]–[139]; Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters and Crate & Barrel Ltd [2001] FSR 288, 296; [2000] EWHC Ch 179; V&S Vin & Sprit Aktiebolag AB v Absolut Beach Pty Ltd (ChD 15 May 2001); Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Purple Harmony Plates Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1062 [35]; Containerlift Services v Maxwell Rotors Limited (No 1) (2004) 58 I PR 658 [45]–[46] (NZHC).Google Scholar

200 Citigroup Inc v City Holding Co 97 F Supp 2d 549, 567 (SDNY 2000).Google Scholar

201 National Football League v Miller 54 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1574 [2] (SDNY 2000); American Network Inc v Access America 975 F Supp 494, 497 (SDNY 1997); Hearst Corp v Goldberger 1997 WL 97097 [10] (SDNY).Google Scholar

202 Citigroup (above n 200) 567.Google Scholar

203 Menashe Business Mercantile Ltd v William Hill Organisation Ltd [2003] 1 WLR 1462; [2002] EWCA Civ 1702 [33].Google Scholar

204 Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd [2000] Ch 403, 436 (CA).Google Scholar

205 ibid 433–41; Torremans, P ‘Private international law aspects of intellectual property— Internet disputes’ in Edwards, L and Waelde, C (eds) Law and the Internet—A Framework for Electronic Commerce (2nd ednHart Publishing Oxford 2000) 225, 242.Google Scholar

206 Though the court must apply that foreign law as the lex loci protectionis.Google Scholar

207 Torremans above n 205 at 242.Google Scholar

208 A Briggs above n 16 at 50.Google Scholar

209 eg an Australian court has jurisdiction in a case of spam email if there is an ‘Australian link’ (as defined in Spam Act 2003 (Cth) s 7), regardless of the place of commission of the contravention (s 14).Google Scholar

210 eg Alteen v Informix Corp [1998] 164 Nfld&PEIR 301 (NfldSC); Maritz Inc v CyberGold Inc 947 F Supp 1328, 1331 (EDMo 1996); Playboy Enterprises Inc v Chuckleberry Publishing Inc 939 F Supp 1032, 1039 (SDNY 1996); Cody v Ward 954 F Supp 43 (DConn 1997).Google Scholar

211 It would also apply in determining the place where the damage was suffered for the purposes of the draft Hague Convention (2001 version) Art 10(l)(b).Google Scholar

212 eg place where damage ‘is suffered’, ‘is sustained’, ‘occurs‘, ‘is caused‘, or ‘results’.Google Scholar

213 Reed, C above n 47 [7.1.3.5].Google Scholar

214 eg Challenor v Douglas [1983] 2 NSWLR 405, 408–11; Flaherty v Girgis (1985) 4 NSWLR 248, 266–7.Google Scholar

215 Shevill above n 134 [27]-[33].Google Scholar

216 Art 10 of the draft Hague Convention (2001 version) contemplates this.Google Scholar

217 Vick, DW and Macpherson, L ‘Anglicizing defamation law in the European Union’ (1996) 36 Virginia J Intl L 933.Google Scholar

218 Castellblanch SA v Louis Roederer SA, Cass civ lère, 9 décembre 2003, pourvoi n° 0 1 -03.225.Google Scholar

219 GTE New Media Services Inc v Bellsouth Corp 199 F 3d 1343, 1349 (DC Cir 2000).Google Scholar

220 Dumez (above n 150) 80 [20]–[22].Google Scholar

221 Hasbro Inc v Clue Computing Inc 994 F Supp 34, 43 (D Mass 1997); Ford Motor Co v Great Domains Inc 141 F Supp 2d 763, 771 (EDMich 2001).Google Scholar

222 eg misleading or deceptive conduct in Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52: Hunter Grain Pty Ltd v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd (1993) 117 ALR 507, 518-20 (FCA).Google Scholar

223 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chen [2002] FCA 1248 [4]-[5].Google Scholar

224 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chen (2003) 201 ALR 40; [2003] FCA 897 [46]–[61].Google Scholar

225 Delta, GB and Matsuura, JHLaw of the Internet (Looseleaf 2nd ednAspen Law & Business New York 2003) §3.05 urges defendants to incorporate an internet business separately from the rest of the business operation in order to shield assets from worldwide liability.Google Scholar

226 The draft Hague Convention, in so far as it aims to deal with reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments, would be a step forward.Google Scholar

227 Svantesson, D ‘Jurisdictional issues in cyberspace: At the cross-roads—The proposed Hague Convention and the future of internet defamation’ (2002) 18 Computer L & Security Report 191, 195.Google Scholar

228 Shevill above n 134 [24]–[33].Google Scholar

229 The effect of this limitation may be more apparent than real: Vick, DW and Macpherson, L ‘Anglicizing defamation law in the European Union’ (1996) 36 Virginia J Intl L 933.Google Scholar

230 A Reed above n 163 at 98.Google Scholar

231 eg Australia.Google Scholar

232 Gutnick above n 38 at 601 [28].Google Scholar

233 Australia: Gutnick (above n 38) 608 [48]; England: Chadha v Dow Jones & Co Inc [1999] Entertainment & Media L Rep 724, 732; [1999] EWCA Civ 1415; Berezovsky (above n 109) 1012, 1018, 1026 (HL); Godfrey (above n 19) 208–9; Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd [2002] QB 783 [58]; Harrods v Dow Jones [2003] EWHC 1162 (QB); King v Lewis [2004] EWCA Civ 1329 [2]; Richardson v Schwarzenegger [2004] EWHC 2422 [19] (QB); Canada: Bangoura v Washington Post (2004) 235 DLR (4th) 564 (OntSCJ) [14]–[22]; Hong Kong: Investasia Ltd v Kodansha Co Ltd [1999] 3 HKC 515; Malaysia: Lee Teck Chee v Merrill Lynch International Bank Ltd [1998] 110 MLJU 1; [1998] 4 Current LJ 188, 194-5. cf Singapore: Goh Chok Tong v Tang Liang Hong [1997] 2 SLR 641 [33], [67], [78]. See generally Coffins, MThe Law of Defamation and the Internet (OUP Oxford 2001) [24.19], [24.21], [24.26].Google Scholar

234 Cf Landgericht Miinchen I, Urteil vom 17 Oktober 1996, Az: HKO 12190/96, where a German Court assumed jurisdiction because world-wide accessibility of a defamatory statement on the internet meant that the injurious act was committed also in Germany.Google Scholar

235 Cf Bochan above n 26.Google Scholar

236 Gutnick above n 38 600-1 [26]-[27].Google Scholar

237 Cf Briggs, A ‘The Duke of Brunswick and defamation by internet’ (2003) 119 LQR 210.Google Scholar

238 Pullman v Hill [1891] 1 QB 524, 527; Hebditch v Mcllwaine [1894] 2 QB 54, 61; Bata v Bata [1948] WN 366, 367 (CA).Google Scholar

239 Bata above n 238 at 367.Google Scholar

240 Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185, 189; 117 ER 75, 77.Google Scholar

241 Berezovsky (above n 109).Google Scholar

242 ibid 1012, 1018, 1026.

243 ibid 1023–4.

244 ibid 1013, 1017.

245 Gutnick (above n 38).Google Scholar

246 ibid 608 [48], 611-12 [65], 642 [163], 654[202].

247 ibid 607 [46]-[47], 610 [56], 622 [102].

248 ibid 606 [44], 621 [100], 652-3 [198]-[199].

249 ibid 608 [48].

250 ibid 595 [6].

251 ibid 606 [44].

252 Attorney-General for England and Wales v Tomlinson [1999] 3 NZLR 722 [21]–[24] (NZHC).Google Scholar

253 A New Zealand Court enjoined New Zealand defendants from using a particular domain name in UK and Europe, regardless of the practical difficulty of blocking access to the website by users in those territories: Containerlift Services v Maxwell Rotors Limited (No 2) (2004) 58 IPR 667 [14]–[15], [17], [22] (NZHC).Google Scholar

254 Re Burlands Trade Mark (1889) 41 ChD 542.Google Scholar

255 eg CPR r 6.20(2).Google Scholar

256 Article 5(3): ‘place where the harmful event…may occur.’ This appears in the Judgments Regulation, not in the Conventions, though the Conventions have been construed as allowing courts to enjoin conduct.Google Scholar

257 British Telecommunications v One in a Million Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 903 (CA); Oggi Advertising Ltd v McKenzie [1999] 1 NZLR 631 (NZHC); New Zealand Post (above n 199); Bell Actimedia Inc v Puzo (1999) 88 ACWS (3d) 1073 (FedCtTDiv) [50].Google Scholar

258 eg Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd v Dunlop [1921] AC 367 (HL); Tozier v Hawkins (1885) 15 QBD 680.Google Scholar

259 The jurisdiction to grant such injunction stems from the ‘damage’ limb of CPR r 6.20(8) or Judgments Regulation Art 5(3) by necessary implication.Google Scholar

260 eg New Zealand Post above n 199, where the Court ordered the defendant to delete the words ‘nz post’ from any website, and did not feel constrained to limit the injunction to the territory of New Zealand.Google Scholar

261 cf Mecklermedia above n 149 at 55.Google Scholar

262 But it is not altogether impossible: Speechworks Ltd v Speechworks International Inc [2000] ScotCS 200 [27]; Yahoo! above n 42. One method of excluding conduct from a particular territory is by the website's server determining the location of the client through his IP address, and blocking access to the website if the client is in the territory. Of course, this is not foolproof as it is possible to alter an IP address to show location in a different territory.Google Scholar

263 ‘Morocco Bound’ Syndicate Ltd v Harris [1895] 1 Ch 534.Google Scholar

264 As acknowledged in Chen above n 224 [46]–[61]. Generally at common law an injunction is not enforceable outside the jurisdiction: Marshall v Marshall (1888) 38 Ch D 330 (CA). Perhaps it is time to reform this rule: Pro Swing Inc v ELTA Golf Inc (2004) 71 OR (3d) 566, 570 [9] (OntCA on appeal to SCC). cf the Judgments Regulation, under which any order of a Member State's court, including an injunction, is enforceable in all other Member States.Google Scholar

265 Macquarie Bank v Berg (1999) Aust Defam Rep 53, 035; [1999] NSWSC 526.Google Scholar

266 ibid [11]-[15].

267 Garnett, R ‘Are foreign internet infringers beyond the reach of the law?’ (2000) 23 U New South Wales LJ 105, 123Google Scholar; Kohl, U ‘Defamation on the internet—a duty-free zone after all? Macquarie Bank v Berg’ (2000) 22 Sydney L Rev 119.Google Scholar

268 cf B Fitzgerald above n 48 608–11.Google Scholar