Dyson Technology Limited & Anor v Channel Four Television Corporation & Anor

In determining the meaning of a television broadcast, the court must assess the broadcast as a whole from the perspective of the ordinary reasonable viewer, who will normally watch it once and consider its words, images, sounds and presentation together. Context and mitigating material may reduce an allegation from guilt to reasonable grounds to suspect wrongdoing. The repetition rule prevents a report of an allegation being treated as less defamatory merely because it is reported, but it does not prescribe the resulting level of meaning. Whether words convey fact or opinion depends on how they would strike the ordinary reasonable viewer. Statements expressing a value judgment about whether conduct matches a public ethical image are likely to be comment, while allegations about what occurred and what a party did or failed to do are likely to be factual.

The claimants, two Dyson companies, brought libel proceedings concerning a Channel 4 News broadcast about alleged abuse and exploitation at a Malaysian supplier’s factories. The defendants denied the claimants’ pleaded meaning of complicity and advanced meanings based on responsibility and reasonable grounds to suspect responsibility. They also contended that parts of the broadcast were statements of opinion protected by the honest opinion defence under Defamation Act 2013, section 3.

Following an earlier preliminary-issue judgment and an appeal concerning reference, the court was required to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the broadcast, whether that meaning was defamatory, and whether the publication contained fact or opinion. The court also determined costs relating to an amendment application rendered unnecessary by the successful appeal on reference.

1. Meaning. The broadcast conveyed reasonable grounds to suspect that the claimants were responsible for abuse and exploitation at ATA, responsible for the persecution of a whistleblower, and had tried to cover up allegations and suppress public criticism. It also conveyed that the claimants had failed to meet their advertised standards of ethics and corporate social responsibility.

2. The ordinary reasonable viewer would distinguish the claimants’ responsibility from complicity. The broadcast made clear that ATA was responsible for the actual abuse and referred to audits, the claimants’ investigation of matters and termination of the supplier relationship. The repetition rule did not require the court to adopt the same level of meaning as the original allegations. The repeated denials, explanation of the claimants’ position and other mitigating material enabled the viewer to suspend judgment on guilt, resulting in a Chase level 2 meaning: reasonable grounds to suspect responsibility.

3. The court assessed the broadcast as a whole. The viewer would not undertake forensic analysis or rely on a transcript. Images, music and visual contrasts formed part of the communication. The allegation that the claimants’ conduct fell short of their public ethical image was a value judgment and comment. Most allegations about events at ATA and the claimants’ conduct in response were factual allegations.

4. The meaning was defamatory at common law, and the defendants accepted that conclusion. The court directed that the costs of the Reference Amendment Application be paid by the defendants to the claimants, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

• Court of Appeal: In [2023] EWCA Civ 884, the appeal was allowed on the issue of reference and the order that the broadcast did not refer to the corporate claimants was set aside.
• High Court: In [2022] EWHC 2718 (KB), Nicklin J dismissed Sir James Dyson’s case and ruled against the corporate claimants on intrinsic reference. The present court determined the remaining preliminary issues and the consequential costs application.