1 / 69

'Borderless cyberspace' ? - Internet jurisdiction issues

'Borderless cyberspace' ? - Internet jurisdiction issues. Russell Allen Incorporating slides by Professor Graham Greenleaf and Dan Svantesson. These slides may be used for private, non-commercial study only. Introduction. What’s the problem?. ‘Borderless’ problems.

thuyet
Download Presentation

'Borderless cyberspace' ? - Internet jurisdiction issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 'Borderless cyberspace' ? - Internet jurisdiction issues Russell Allen Incorporating slides by Professor Graham Greenleaf and Dan Svantesson These slides may be used for private, non-commercial study only.

  2. Introduction What’s the problem?

  3. ‘Borderless’ problems • You are defamed on a website overseas • Your books bought from an online bookstore overseas never arrive • Will an Australian court hear your case? • Which country’s law applies? • Can you enforce Australian laws overseas? • Why don’t countries have the same laws?

  4. Borderless cyberspace? • Two methods by which law overcomes the ‘borderless problem’: • (i) Private international law • Methods of resolving conflicts in cyberspace between individuals from different countries • (ii) Public international law • Agreements between States to have common local rules concerning cyberspace • Methods of resolving disputes between States

  5. Conflict of Laws AKA Private International Law

  6. What is “Conflict of laws”? • Procedural rules as contrasted to substantive rules! • Private International law (or jurisdictional issues) • Not only international – also domestic in federations like Australia

  7. What is “Conflict of Laws”? • Jurisdiction – Which court will decide the dispute? • Choice of law – which substantive law should the court apply? • Recognition and Enforcement – Where can the judgment have effect?

  8. A Four Step Model (NSW) • Jurisdiction – Supreme Court Rules • Choice of law – (contract) proper law, (tort) lex loci delicti • Forum non conveniens – YES/NO • Recognition & enforcement – YES/NO

  9. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction – Choice of Law – Forum non Conveniens - Enforcement

  10. Jurisdiction in Australia • When will Australian courts assert cyberspace jurisdiction? • 2 connections must be present - • (i) ‘Personal jurisdiction’ • (ii) ‘Subject matter jurisdiction’

  11. Personal jurisdiction • Depends on service of a writ on the Defendant (D) - 2 possibilities: • (I) Satisfied if D can be served in Australia, or consents to jurisdiction • (ii) Australian court can allow service ex juris outside Australia

  12. Service Ex Juris in Tort • The tort was committed within the forumSupreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Pt 10 r 1A(1)(d) • The tort had damaging effects within the forum Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Pt 10 r 1A(1)(e)

  13. Service Ex Juris in Contract • The contract was made within the forum • The contract was breached within the forum • The contract is governed by the law of the forum

  14. Service Ex Juris for Injunctions • May be permitted when the plaintiff seeks injunction to compel or restrain act of defendant within the forum which infringes P’s rights in forum

  15. Choice of Law Jurisdiction – Choice of Law – Forum non Conveniens - Enforcement

  16. Choice of Law: • This issue will only ever arise if the forum finds that it may claim jurisdiction. • Sometimes the question of jurisdiction is not in dispute, but the choice of law is.

  17. Choice of Law: • Lex fori – the law of the forum • Lex loci delicti – the law of the place where the wrong was committed • Lex loci celebrationis – the law of the place where a judicial act occurs

  18. Choice of Law: • The reasonable expectation of the parties. • Uniformity in result

  19. Defamation (Tort) • Main Rule: Lex loci delicti • John Pfeiffer Pty Limited v Rogerson [2000] HCA 36 (21 June 2000) • Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang [2002] HCA 10 (14 March 2002)

  20. Defamation (Tort) • The place of wrong is the place where the publication takes place • Publication takes place where the defamatory material is made manifest to the receiving third party, in a formatwhich can be comprehended by the receiver

  21. Contracts • The proper law of the contract • Express choice of the proper law • Inferred choice of the proper law • Objective approach to the proper law

  22. Exceptions • Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 67 • Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) s 7(1) • Golden Acres Ltd v Queensland Estates Pty Ltd [1969] Qd R 378 • Can’t use express choice to be oppressive or to evade law

  23. Party Autonomy • Parties to contract are free to make binding agreement between themselves as to forum and choice of law • Restrictions on this in EU law • Restrictions on this in s67 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

  24. Forum Non Conveniens Jurisdiction – Choice of Law – Forum non Conveniens - Enforcement

  25. Forum Non Conveniens • Courts have a discretionary power to decline jurisdiction when the convenience of the parties and justice would be better achieved by resolving the dispute in another forum. • Court considers factors such as the ease of access to sources of proof, and the availability of witnesses. • Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it finds that it is a clearly inappropriate forum to determine the application: Voth v Manildra Flour Mills (1990) 171 CLR 538

  26. Forum Non Conveniens • A court shall decline jurisdiction under certain circumstances • In Australia – clearly inappropriate forum

  27. Forum Non Conveniens • Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) - SECT 10.6A(2)(b) • “…that this Court is an inappropriate forum for the trial of the proceedings”

  28. Factors taken into account • Connection between forum and subject-matter • Connection between forum and the parties • Judicial advantages to the plaintiff • The availability of an alternative forum • The applicable law

  29. Forum Non Conveniens: • In majority of common law states – “more appropriate forum” • Which rule is better? • “Clearly inappropriate forum” OR “More appropriate forum”?

  30. Enforcement Jurisdiction – Choice of Law – Forum non Conveniens – Enforcement

  31. Recognition and Enforcement: • If there is no risk that the judgment can be enforced against you, why bother defending? • If there is no chance of having the judgment enforced against the other party, why bother going to court?

  32. Recognition and Enforcement: • Assets in third country, that would recognize and enforce the judgment (Brussels Convention in the EU) • Future business in the state that made the judgment or in third country, that would recognize and enforce the judgment • This area is being harmonized through international co-operation.

  33. Enforcement in Australia • In Australia there are two ways to enforce a foreign judgment: • Recognition at common law • Recognition by Statute

  34. Recognition by Statute • Only certain countries • On a reciprocity level • Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth)

  35. Recognition at common law • Any country • A four criteria test: • Foreign court must have had international jurisdiction • Foreign judgment must be final and conclusive • Same parties and same action • A fixed debt

  36. Defences to Common Law • Foreign judgment obtained by fraud • Foreign judgment contrary to public policy • Foreign court acted contrary to natural justice • Foreign judgment is penal • Foreign court acted ‘perversely’ in refusing to apply the appropriate law • Foreign judgment estopped by prior judgment within Australia • Foreign Procedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Act 1984 (Cth)

  37. Recap: The Model (NSW) • Jurisdiction – Supreme Court Rules • Choice of law – (contract) proper law, (tort) lex loci delicti • Forum non conveniens – YES/NO • Recognition & enforcement – YES/NO

  38. Australian Cases

  39. Macquarie Bank v Berg • Macquarie Bank Ltd v. Berg [1999] NSWSC 52 • Injunction sought to stop publication by Defendant in US on US website of defamatory material • Court declared it had power, but exercise was a matter of discretion

  40. ASIC v Matthews • ASIC v. Matthews [1999] FCA 164 • ASIC v. Matthews [2000] NSWSC 392 • Publishing of securities material on website, order given to take down and not republish. • Material moved to NZ web server • Found to be contempt of court, 3 months imprisonment

  41. Gutnick v Dow Jones • [2001] VSC 305 (Supreme Court of Victoria) - Dow Jones (DJ) published Barrons Magazine on the web with an article ('Unholy Gains') about G. DJ’s servers are in New Jersey USA (NJ). • G said the defamation occurred in Victoria (Vic); DJ said it occurred in NJ (where defamation of public figures is only where malice is proven) • Court held that defamation occurs where a person comprehends the defamatory content - in Vic - so only Vic law must be satisfied

  42. More Gutnick • Dow Jones v. Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (High Court) • Upheld Hedigan J’s initial decision • Publication takes place where a person comprehends the defamatory content

  43. A Side Issue: Lawyers v Geeks • Read comments by Hedigan J in the initial instance, [2001] VSC 305, at [70, 71] • Compare with comments by Dr Clarke in “Defamation on the Web: Gutnick v. Dow Jones” at http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/Gutnick.html

  44. A side issue: How new is the Internet? • Kirby J: “…more than simply another medium…revolutionary leap” • Callinan J: “…no more than a means of communication by a set of interconnected computers” • Note: Despite this, both judges reached same conclusion

  45. Gutnick on Jurisdiction • Victorian Supreme Court Rules Rule 7.01(1): • Originating process may be served out of Australia without order of the Court where: • (i) the proceeding is founded on a tort committed in Victoria; • (j) the proceeding is brought in respect of damage suffered wholly or partly in Victoria and caused by a tortious act or omission wherever occurring

  46. Gutnick on Choice of Law • Lex Loci Delicti (fairly recent rule) • So, Dow Jones needed a change in the law to win • Callinan J: “a radical shift in the law of defamation”

  47. Dow Jones on Choice of Law • Place of uploading • Effect: Extending US Law • Problem: What about, eg, FreeNet? • Problem: What about ASIC v. Matthews? • Problem: Jurisdiction different to Choice of Law

  48. Gutnick on Forum non Conveniens • “clearly inappropriate” test reaffirmed • Gutnick gave an undertaking to sue in Victoria, for damages suffered in Victoria under Victorian law. • Gaudron J: “Whole controversy” test

  49. Two Other Issues • Gutnick gave an undertaking to sue in Victoria, for damages suffered in Victoria under Victorian law. Did this influence the Court? • WSJ.com was a subscription site, with a number of subscribers who had paid by methods which identified their jurisdiction, eg Credit Cards. Would a totally free site have fared differently?

  50. Gutnick Reactions • From Gutnick, it seems that wherever a person reads a web page, their local law applies to it - 300+ laws may apply! • Some claim this may destroy the Internet • Alternative view: Why should US law and the US First Amendment apply world-wide? • Enforcement of judgments must also be considered

More Related