Another missive from Warren McKeon Dickson

I just received this:

Warren McKeon Dickson no 1Warren McKeon Dickson no 2

And this was my reply:

Jacqui,

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
corporation-

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
full-time equivalent.

(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.

regards,

Bruce

14 comments ↓

#1 Ian Osborne on 08.27.09 at 10:51 am

Is there an Australian equivalent of The Law Society, a regulatory body that has authority over solicitors? In the UK at least, the letters they sent could well prove grounds for complaint.

How did they get your address anyway?

#2 Bruce on 08.27.09 at 11:06 am

There is a NSW law society: http://www.lawsociety.com.au/index.htm

This is the email address for their professional standards department: Ray.Collins@lawsociety.com.au

#3 crazyrabbits on 08.27.09 at 1:24 pm

I wonder if that legal team even knows that they’re representing a man who’s already being charged with instigating click fraud.

#4 Elven6 on 08.27.09 at 10:03 pm

I take it you wish to proceed the case then? This has definitely become a interesting case to follow.

Although is posting legal documents you receive and emails you sent on your blog a good idea Bruce?

#5 Ian Osborne on 08.28.09 at 7:57 am

You might want to send him an email. If Warren McKeon Dickson are misrepresenting the law in their letters, it’s almost certainly grounds for action.

#6 PieceOfMind on 08.28.09 at 3:39 pm

Is there any way I and other Aussies can legally help?

I hate lawyers like this.

#7 JZVS on 08.29.09 at 3:18 pm

i am really confused how can a company based in china file a complaint under Australian law against someone in the uk

can you please explain , if they are not an australian registered business this make no sense you can check here

http://www.abr.business.gov.au/(a3qgwh55dm4kq5jhoek50i55)/main.aspx

#8 Brendan on 08.31.09 at 2:45 pm

Careful Bruce, that letter is copyrighted. Scanning the letter was copyright infringement. Hosting the letter on your blog is distributing that infringing copy. Even if you don’t care to respect their rights in this case (and good show, I don’t appreciate that kind of behaviour from them), considering you’re dealing with a law firm, is it wise to do that?

#9 Michael on 09.07.09 at 8:33 am

Mr Everiss i have been fighting for Warren McKeon and Dickson and Evony to drop their charges against you. I have found your golden goose here is the proof that ties UMGE to Evony

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2FQa30lqXhgJ:www.umge.com/index.do%3FPageModule%3DPaySelect%26SID%3D2+site:www.UMGE.com&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Google cached page from umge.com

#10 Steve on 09.08.09 at 7:11 pm

i’m sorely tempted to say

” ask them to send all their correspondance to you via snail-mail, printed on high quality , luxury loo roll..as it will save you a fortune, due to the nature of lawyers generating so much paperwork”

.. but that would just be crass , wouldn’t it ;)

wishing you all the best with this,
steve

#11 Nils Jørgen on 09.25.09 at 3:01 pm

I am so gonna spread the news of this utterly retarded moronic ****tard behavior from Mr Dick and Evony everywhere. Yeah you heard me mister dumb as a rock laywer. Go ahead and try to stop me. I DARE you.

On a more serious note though. I hope you nail them so hard their coffin will be crying.

#12 B on 09.27.09 at 10:59 am

I was interested in your argument that Evony LLC is an excluded corporation. Do they employ less than 10 full time staff?

I humbly agree with your conclusion regarding Dow Jones Co Inc. v Gutnick, but for a different reason – Gutnick himself was resident in Victoria, and that is why his reputation was damaged there (see paragraph 54 of the majority decision: “Finally, if the two considerations just mentioned are not thought to limit the scale of the problem confronting those who would make information available on the World Wide Web, the spectre which Dow Jones sought to conjure up in the present appeal, of a publisher forced to consider every article it publishes on the World Wide Web against the defamation laws of every country from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe is seen to be unreal when it is recalled that in all except the most unusual of cases, identifying the person about whom material is to be published will readily identify the defamation law to which that person may resort.”).

I am not a solicitor, and this is not legal advice.

#13 sam on 10.04.09 at 2:13 am

1. Re: JZVS on 08.29.09 at 3:18 pm

[i am really confused how can a company based in china file a complaint under Australian law against someone in the uk]

Firstly, Evony LLC is a US based & registered company.

In any event, it does not stop them from filing a complaint under Australian law against someone in the UK. Whether Australia (i.e. NSW) is a forum non conveniens is up to the court to decide. The court may very well decide not to exercise their jurisdiction to hear the case on that basis.

2. crazyrabbits on 08.27.09 at 1:24 pm

[I wonder if that legal team even knows that they’re representing a man who’s already being charged with instigating click fraud.]

Whether he has or hasn’t is irrelevant to the allegations contained in their letter; the claim is brought on behalf of Evony LLC, and independant legal entity.

3. Ian Osborne on 08.27.09 at 10:51 am

[Is there an Australian equivalent of The Law Society, a regulatory body that has authority over solicitors? In the UK at least, the letters they sent could well prove grounds for complaint.]

There is, as Bruce noted. The is nothing wrong with the letter. The closest they came to crossing the proverbial line was the sentence:

“our client will rely on it as such, for the purposes of the application of the relevant provisions of the defamation act etc.”

On the face of it, it may appear that they are threatening potential legal action (which may constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct (and maybe professional misconduct, but this is even more unlikely), however, on careful review, I note that they have (and grudgingly I admire their skills in drafting): that they note they will use it for the purpose of the APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS (i.e. in interpreting the provisions) and not an APPLICATION UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS (i.e. threatened legal action).

There is nothing wrong with the letter.

#14 zohan on 10.20.09 at 8:39 am

“and is not related to another corporation” these words are often overlooked…

Also, Division 10 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) is worth a read.

online poker
SuperSignupBonus