By David Young-
James Dyson, (pictured)the renowned inventor, is awaiting a verdict on his libel claim against the publisher of the Daily Mirror.
The 76-year-old inventor testified at the Royal Courts of Justice over two days in a trial against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) regarding an article published in January 2022.
Sir James Dyson filed a libel claim against MGN, describing the allegations as a “vicious and vitriolic” personal attack. MGN is defending the claim, asserting that the article is based on honest opinion.
The article in question, written by journalist Brian Reade, referred to Dyson as “the vacuum-cleaner tycoon who championed Vote Leave due to the economic opportunities it would bring to British industry before moving his global head office to Singapore.”
The piece continued with Reade stating, “Kids, talk the talk but then screw your country, and if anyone complains, tell them to suck it up.”
In a written statement to the court, Dyson described a Daily Mirror article published last year as a “personal attack on all that I have done and achieved in my lifetime” and said it was “highly distressing and hurtful”.
Dyson, who attended the Royal Courts of Justice in London for the first day of the trial on Tuesday, is suing the publisher of the Daily Mirror, Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), for libel over the article published in January 2022. The publisher maintains the article was “honest opinion”.
In the article, the journalist Brian Reade wrote that it must be confusing to be a young person who “wants to do the right thing”, before discussing the actions of a series of individuals including the former prime minister Boris Johnson, Prince Andrew and Dyson.
Reade, who writes a weekly column for the Mirror, referred to Dyson as “the vacuum-cleaner tycoon who championed Vote Leave due to the economic opportunities it would bring to British industry before moving his global head office to Singapore”.
He continued: “Kids, talk the talk but then screw your country and if anyone complains, tell them to suck it up.
At the conclusion of the trial on Thursday, Mr. Justice Jay announced that he would deliver a written decision at a later date, suggesting the ruling might come before Christmas. “I am going to think carefully about it,” he stated.
Justin Rushbrooke KC, representing Sir James, argued that the articles constituted a “serious and unjustified slur” on Dyson’s reputation, business, and personal life. He emphasized that an “honest opinion is supposed to give latitude but is not a license for a journalist to mislead the reader.”
In response, Adrienne Page KC, representing MGN, asserted that the words in the article were “substantially correct” and that Sir James could not dictate how the commentator framed them. Page added that the article “is pitched to a lay audience, against a notorious background to 2019, and he is doing it pithily.”
The case centers on whether the article’s words were substantially correct and whether they were an expression of honest opinion. The outcome of this trial will be eagerly awaited, as it may have implications for the boundaries of press freedom and the right to express opinions in the media.