Facts: D (Dow Jones) published a defamatory article in the US about P (Gutnick, Victorian resident). 14 hard copies were sold in Victoria, there were over 1700 AU online subscribers, including 300 of them from Victoria, Australia & some who had downloaded the article. P (VIC) sued D (New Jersey) in Victoria for the tort of defamation. P limited his claim to Victoria. D was served overseas and challenged jurisdiction; D entered conditional appearance applying for staying of proceedings and arguing forum non conveniens (FNC).
Issue: Had the tort occurred where the defamatory material was published (US) or where it was read by subscribers (Victoria, Australia)?
Held: The place of the tort was VIC where the article was downloaded (not the US where it was published). As the tort was committed in VIC, originating process could be served on D in New Jersey, and as this was a local tort, the only relevant substantive law was the law of VIC.
Reasoning: In defamation cases, harm to reputation occurs when the defamatory publication is comprehended by the reader, listener or observer; until then, no harm is done; therefore it is when the person downloads the material that the damage to reputation is done.