Page 11 66 In Berezovsky v. Michaels [1999] EMLR 278 in the Court of Appeal the defendants sought to persuade the court to approach the case as if it involved a single global cause of action to be pursued in whatever jurisdiction was the most appropriate. The single publication rule was invoked by way of analogy. This argument was not advanced in the House of Lords and Lord Steyn observed [2000] I WLR 1004, 1012 that it was "contrary to the long established principle in England libel law that each publication is a separate tort". In the present case the defendants do not suggest that the English courts should apply the single publication rule where a libel has been disseminated in more than one jurisdiction. They contend, however, that the rule should be applied when the issue is one of limitation in relation to an action commenced in this jurisdiction. At para. 76 of Loutchansky, the court rejected the defendants' contention that the single publication rule should be used in England: 76 The change in the law of defamation for which the defendants contend is a radical one. In our judgment they have failed to make out their case that such a change is required. The Internet single publication appeal is therefore dismissed. [17] As well, in an Australian case, Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, [2002] HCA 56, the Australian High Court declined an invitation to adopt the single publication rule in Australia. In that case, the argument was not directed at a limitation issue but to a question of the appropriate forum in which to try an action for defamation wherein the plaintiff Gutnick, a resident of the Australian state of Victoria, alleged that he had been libelled in an article published by the American defendant publisher, Dow Jones & Company Inc., who maintained the web servers for its online services (which hosted the defamatory statements) in the United States. The members of the High Court, particularly Kirby J. in a concurring judgment, acknowledged that the advent of the internet had created an entirely new publishing 2005 BCCA 398 (CanLII) Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn.