I just received this:
And this was my reply:
I just thought that I would bring the Australian law to your attention, you seem to be threatening me without substance:
Defamation Act 2005 – SECT 9
Certain corporations do not have cause of action for defamation
9. Certain corporations do not have cause of action for defamation
(1) A corporation has no cause of action for defamation in relation to the
publication of defamatory matter about the corporation unless it was an
excluded corporation at the time of the publication.
(2) A corporation is an excluded corporation if-
(a) the objects for which it is formed do not include obtaining financial
gain for its members or corporators; or
(b) it employs fewer than 10 persons and is not related to another
and the corporation is not a public body.
(3) In counting employees for the purposes of subsection (2)(b), part-time
employees are to be taken into account as an appropriate fraction of a
(4) In determining whether a corporation is related to another corporation for
the purposes of subsection (2)(b), section 50 of the Corporations Act applies
as if references to bodies corporate in that section were references to
corporations within the meaning of this section.
(5) subsection (1) does not affect any cause of action for defamation that an
individual associated with a corporation has in relation to the publication of
defamatory matter about the individual even if the publication of the same
matter also defames the corporation.
(6) In this section-
corporation includes any body corporate or corporation constituted by or under
a law of any country (including by exercise of a prerogative right), whether
or not a public body; public body means a local government body or other
governmental or public authority constituted by or under a law of any country.
Also you quote Gutnick v Dow Jones, this is a false precedent as you are probably aware. The damage to Gutnick’s reputation occurred in Victoria when subscribers in Victoria to the online magazine published by Dow Jones read a defamatory article about Gutnick. So Victoria was the correct jurisdiction. In this case the overwhelming number of readers of my blog are not in NSW and Evony is not in NSW, so NSW is not the correct jurisdiction for hearing the case.
Also everything I have written is either easily proven truth or fair comment. Which you would know if you looked at the facts.
I am just about to catch a plane and will be back in the UK on 14th September.