由此 - 37 - A B A place here. Otherwise, the Hong Kong Court may not be able to assume extra-territorial jurisdiction under Order 11. C C D E 142. The situation in this case is different. B Here a party (the Plaintiffs) has sued a Hong Kong company (ATOL) as of right in D E Hong Kong. There is no need to obtain leave for service outside of the F G H I jurisdiction and therefore no need to establish that the defamation took place here. 143. F G On the other hand, in the case of Al Amoudi v. Brisard [2007] 1 WLR 113 (also relied upon by Mr. Remedios) the question was whether, H I in the absence of a positive defence, the claimant could strike out a bare J K denial by the defendant that there had been no substantial publication of certain offending words in England. The claimant argued that there was a J K rebuttable presumption of law that an article on an internet website, being L M open to everyone in the world, had been published in England. Gray J held that there was no such presumption, although publication in England could L M be inferred as a matter of fact from all the circumstances of a case. N N O 144. Al Amoudi is no authority for the proposition that, in the O absence of proof of publication in Hong Kong, a party cannot sue in Hong P Kong for the publication of a libel elsewhere. Q Q 145. R P Here there can be little doubt that the Article was accessed by R third parties outside Hong Kong. S S T T U U V V