Re: The Macquarie Bank Case thrown out

From: Michael do Rozario <mdr[_at_]abkj.com.au>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:13:01 +1000

On Fri, Jun 11, 1999, Paul Geller <pgeller[_at_]law.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Michael Lean <m.lean[_at_]qut.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the judge said the most
> > significant factor was the nature of the Internet itself. Here
> > is some of the judgement:
> >
> > "It is reasonably plain, I think that once published on the
> > Internet, material is tranmitted anywhere in the world that
> > has an Internet connection. It may be received by anybody,
> > anywhere, having the appropriate facilities.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > "It may well be that [in another country] the defendant has an
> > unfettered right to publish the material. To make an order
> > interfering with such a right would exceed the proper limits of
> > the use of the injunctive power of this court."
>
> Should the court have at least taken a sampling of laws in
> the major countries in which the alleged defamation would
> have been likely to reach significant audiences? If these
> laws would have allowed for relief under the facts of the
> case, and assuming personal jurisdiction over the defendant,
> should the judge have then considered dealing with the case?
> If all judges acted with the arguably excessive restraint
> of this one, where would claimants obtain relief against
> global cyber-torts, including copyright infringement?

     With respect, I think this misses the point. Injunctions are traditionally an equitable remedy, and therefore, (paraphrasing a couple of hundred years of case law into a few words) must be fair in all the circumstances. Not only would the Plaintiff have to show that there was a cause of action, and that damages were inadequate, but that there was some substantial reason why the court should exercise its discretion to grant the injunction. If, for whatever reason it appears to the judge that any injunction issued, would either not fair, or more likely be unenforceable the Plaintiff is going to have a hard time convincing a judge to grant one.

     There is no doubt that the courts are being cautious in extending the reach of laws into the net, but really its not their job to regulate the Internet, and they should be loathe to do it - especially where to do so would be contrary to precedent.

     Cheers
     Michael do Rozario

________________________________________________

Michael do Rozario B. Inf Tech, LL.B
Adamson Bernays Kyle & Jones Solicitors
PO Box 1046, Southport, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, 4215 Telephone +61 7 5532 3199, Facsimile +61 7 5591 3402 Email: mdr[_at_]abkj.com.au

---------Adamson Bernays Kyle & Jones - Disclaimer This is confidential communication, and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not reproduce or distribute the contents of this E-mail. You are required to contact the writer at the above address, and notify him/her of the error, and then delete the message. You will be reimbursed for the reasonable costs of doing so. This E-mail does not constitute formal nor legal advice and should not be acted upon without verifying the contents with the writer. The partners of Adamson Bernays Kyle & Jones will not be held responsible for any loss or damage caused through action on this E-mail. Received on Wed Jun 16 1999 - 05:18:50 GMT