Dyson & Anor v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 188 (QB) (05 February 2020)

Dyson & Anor v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 188 (QB) (05 February 2020)

The articles, in all versions, bore the meaning that the Claimants had behaved oppressively towards Ms Flanders by using their immense wealth to bring High Court proceedings against her in retaliation for her unfair dismissal claim (or anticipated claim). This is a defamatory imputation of fact, not opinion, and is plainly liable to lower the Claimants in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The imputations are not recognisable as comment or opinion. Therefore, the words complained of are defamatory at common law and are statements of fact.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 188 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Sir James Dyson; Claimant: Lady Deirdre Dyson; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation Preliminary Issues / Judgment on Preliminary Issues Before Defence Filed
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined in favour of the Claimants.
Legal Topics
Defamatory Meaning, Fact Vs Opinion, Common Law Defamation, Media Publications, Imputation of Motive
Defamation Media Law Defamatory Meaning Fact Vs Opinion Common Law Defamation Media Publications Imputation of Motive

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sir James Dyson

Claimant

Lady Deirdre Dyson

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Preliminary Issues / Judgment on Preliminary Issues Before Defence Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are defamatory at common law
  2. 2 What defamatory imputations the words bear about each Claimant
  3. 3 Whether any such defamatory imputation is a statement of fact or opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The articles, in all versions, bore the meaning that the Claimants had behaved oppressively towards Ms Flanders by using their immense wealth to bring High Court proceedings against her in retaliation for her unfair dismissal claim (or anticipated claim). This is a defamatory imputation of fact, not opinion, and is plainly liable to lower the Claimants in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The imputations are not recognisable as comment or opinion. Therefore, the words complained of are defamatory at common law and are statements of fact.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined in favour of the Claimants.

Orders

  • The words complained of contain imputations about both Claimants which are defamatory at common law.
  • The defamatory imputations are statements of fact, not opinion.