Dyson Technology Ltd & Anor v Channel Four Television Corporation & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 884 (25 July 2023)

Dyson Technology Ltd & Anor v Channel Four Television Corporation & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 884 (25 July 2023)

The judge erred in law by applying an incorrect test for identification, failing to consider whether a hypothetical reasonable viewer acquainted with Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited would identify them as referred to in the broadcast. The correct test is whether such a viewer would reasonably believe the claimants were the subject of the allegations, and in this case, they would.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 884
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Dyson Technology Limited; Appellant/claimant: Dyson Limited; Respondent/defendant: Channel Four Television Corporation; Respondent/defendant: Independent Television News Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Identification in Defamation, Reference to Claimant, Libel, Slander, Corporate Reputation
Defamation Media Law Identification in Defamation Reference to Claimant Libel Slander Corporate Reputation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dyson Technology Limited

Appellant/claimant

Dyson Limited

Appellant/claimant

Channel Four Television Corporation

Respondent/defendant

Independent Television News Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What legal test should be applied to determine whether an alleged libel or slander refers to a claimant?
  2. 2 Did the broadcast refer to Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited for purposes of defamation law?

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by applying an incorrect test for identification, failing to consider whether a hypothetical reasonable viewer acquainted with Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited would identify them as referred to in the broadcast. The correct test is whether such a viewer would reasonably believe the claimants were the subject of the allegations, and in this case, they would.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order set aside that the broadcast does not refer to the second and third claimants based solely on intrinsic evidence.
  • Case to proceed on the basis that Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited are referred to in the broadcast.