By David Young-
Sir James Dyson and his companies Dyson Technology and Dyson Limited l have lodged libel action against Channel 4 and ITN, the producer of Channel 4 News, at the High Court in London on Thursday.
Sir Dyson is bringing the case over a Channel 4 News broadcast on 10 February that made allegations of abuse and exploitation of workers at a Malaysian factory which formerly supplied goods to Dyson.
Dyson argued that the broadcast falsely said he and his companies were complicit in systematic abuse and exploitation of the workers. In other words, the claim by the broadcaster about complicity is false.
Mr Justice Nicklin is to rule over a number of preliminary issues in the claim, including whether the two companies were referred to in the broadcast, and whether the programme defamed them and Dyson.
Hugh Tomlinson KC, for Dyson and the companies, argued that a claimant does not need to be referred to by name for the programme to be defamatory.
Adam Wolanski KC, for Channel 4 and ITN, argued that the two Dyson companies were not referred to in the programme.
“There is nothing in the words in the broadcast that identifies the second claimant or the third claimant and that is the end of it,” he told the court.
The barrister added that if the two companies were the ones referred to, the programme featured issues of opinion, not factual allegations against them.
“The broadcast raises the question as to whether Dyson is responsible for abuses of labour rights at a company within its supply chain,” Wolanski said in written submissions. “This question is inherently recognisable to the viewer as a matter of opinion.”
Wolanski also argued that the broadcast did not defame Sir James, saying in written submissions that there is “no suggestion whatsoever in the broadcast that [he] has any knowledge of or culpability for Dyson’s relationship with its supplier”.
A defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of another and lowers his esteem in the minds of right thinking people. It must be published in writing or made orally in some other transient form, with no factual basis to it.
Comments of opinion are not defamatory unless they include a statement of fact proven to be untrue.