I am particularly fond of this ruling, (not because I am an Aussie), the victim is an Australian, the publication was available in Australia, the damages were done in Australia. I think the court's take on the situation was prudent:

Australian High Court explains in a case called Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick:

“If people wish to do business in, or indeed travel to, or live in, or utilize the infrastructure of different countries, they can hardly expect to be absolved from compliance with the laws of those countries. The fact that publication might occur everywhere does not mean that it occurs nowhere.” (per Callinan J at para 186)

AND

“ …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.”

There is indeed an update on this: This case turned out to be important because it started the ball rolling on a New York State law protecting New York-based writers against “libel tourism”.

Since then, the issue of US writers being sued for libel abroad, particularly in British courts, has led to the passage of an anti-libel tourism bill in the US House of Representatives. As a result, questions about this issue were also raised in the British Parliament's discussions about libel law reform.

Michael Roberts, Internet libel victim's advocate
http://www.Rexxfield.com