Best writers. Best papers. Let professionals take care of your academic papers

Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon "FIRST15"
ORDER NOW

Task This assignment requires you to select any TWO of the THREE cases below. Read it carefully and produce…

Task This assignment requires you to select any TWO of the THREE cases below. Read it carefully and produce in your own words a summary of the facts, the legal issues which arise, what the court decided and the reasoning it used to reach that decision. Please follow the outline for the briefing below and take a look at the sample brief provided. The length of your case briefing should be between 1,250 to 1,500 words. The deadline for submission is 27 May 2013 in class. P.P. v. PUNG CHEN CHOON (1993) LIM GUAN ENG v. P.P (1998) MARK KODING v. P.P ( 1982) EXAMPLE OF FORMAT. Title and Citation Madhavan Nair v. P.P [1974] HCA 33 Facts The accused ( or name ) is a New York-headquartered publishing company that operates WSJ.com, a subscription-based news web site with its servers in New Jersey. WSJ.com provided access to content from Barron’s Online, which reproduces articles and images from the print version of Barron’s magazine, a Dow Jones publication. An article published in Barron’s Online on October 28, 2000 made references to the respondent, Joseph Gutnick, a resident of state of Victoria in Australia. Gutnick alleged the references to him were defamatory under Australian law. Gutnick filed a suit in the Supreme Court of Victoria against Dow Jones claiming damages for defamation. Process was served on Dow Jones outside Australia in accordance with Rule 7.01(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996. The High Court judge in the case disagreed and dismissed the application by Dow Jones on grounds that the statements by Dow Jones had been published in Victoria when subscribers there accessed them online. Dow Jones appealed to the Court of Appeal, which refused to hear the appeal on the grounds that the lower court’s decision was “plainly correct.” Issues Whether online materials written in the United States and stored on servers in New Jersey may be deemed to have been published in Victoria, Australia when accessed through the World Wide Web there, whether such materials may be subject to the defamation law of Victoria and whether the courts of Victoria are an appropriate forum for the litigation of a defamation claim related to such materials. Reasoning Chief Justice Gleeson / Justices McHugh ruled that for the purposes of defamation, a statement may be deemed to be “published,” and defamation therefore occurs, in the place where the statement is comprehended by a third party, rather than in the location where the publisher initially issues or releases the statement. The court rejected Dow Jones’s argument in favor of a “single publication” rule for online materials in favor of the standards that apply to more traditional modes of communication under established common law precedents. Held The court was unanimous in its decision to dismiss the appeal by Dow Jones, holding that the lower court did not err in refusing to stay the proceedings against Dow Jones, and ordered Dow Jones to pay costs. The ruling allowed Gutnick’s suit against Dow Jones to proceed in the court of first instance in Victoria.