Chadha and Osicom Technologies Inc v Dow Jones and Co Inc: CA 14 May 1999

All the parties were resident in the United States. The alleged libel consisted in an article published in an American magazine. The total sales of the edition in question were 294,346 of which 283,520 were sold in the United States, 408 were sent to subscribers in the United Kingdom and 849 were sold at news stands here. Where a libel had been published abroad, a plaintiff had a duty first to show that there was a sufficient publication here, and where both plaintiff and defendant are non-resident, he must also show a reputation here capable of being damaged, before being given leave to issue and serve out of the jurisdiction. Returning to the judgment of Popplewell J he said: ‘This being a case where both plaintiff and defendant are outside the jurisdiction I am wholly unpersuaded that there is any presumption in favour of the plaintiff or that the authorities as to where a cause of action arises are of any assistance in the instant case.’ In my judgment there is nothing objectionable in that way of stating the law in this particular case. Here the appellants and the respondents were and are outside the jurisdiction and consequently it was for the appellants to show that they had sufficient connections with this country and a reputation to protect in this country.’


Roch LJ Otton Pill LJJ


Times 18-May-1999, Gazette 09-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1415, [2000] 1 WLR 1004




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLewis and others v King CA 19-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages for defamation for an article published on the Internet. The claimant Don King sued in London even though he lived in the US as did the defendants.
Held: A publication via the internet occurred when the material was . .
CitedDow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146330