Abstract
Digital globalisation will see an increase in the number of cases concerning
claims for extraterritorial injunctions as plaintiffs seek to have content
removed from the internet. This article considers the scope of courts’
jurisdiction to issue such injunctions. It is shown that courts have broad
powers to issue injunctions in respect of persons and subject matter located
beyond their territorial jurisdiction. Just because courts possess these
powers does not mean that they should exercise them. But principles of
forum non conveniens, which depend on connections to territory, may be
ill-equipped for omnipresent online content. It is argued that, when faced
with claims to remove content from the internet, courts should exercise
self-restraint in accordance with the technique of equity. Extraterritorial
injunctions are an exorbitant exercise of jurisdiction. They ought to be issued
infrequently and as a last resort.
claims for extraterritorial injunctions as plaintiffs seek to have content
removed from the internet. This article considers the scope of courts’
jurisdiction to issue such injunctions. It is shown that courts have broad
powers to issue injunctions in respect of persons and subject matter located
beyond their territorial jurisdiction. Just because courts possess these
powers does not mean that they should exercise them. But principles of
forum non conveniens, which depend on connections to territory, may be
ill-equipped for omnipresent online content. It is argued that, when faced
with claims to remove content from the internet, courts should exercise
self-restraint in accordance with the technique of equity. Extraterritorial
injunctions are an exorbitant exercise of jurisdiction. They ought to be issued
infrequently and as a last resort.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 34-57 |
| Journal | Journal of Equity |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2018 |