Dyson Technology Limited v Channel Four Television Corporation

Dyson Technology Limited v Channel Four Television Corporation

The judge erred in law by failing to apply the established test for reference, which requires considering whether a hypothetical reasonable viewer acquainted with Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited would identify them as the subject of the broadcast. The broadcast's focus on Dyson as a British company, together with facts known to such a viewer, meant the claimants were referred to in the broadcast.

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
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Identification in Libel, Reference to Claimant, Preliminary Issues, Corporate Defamation
Defamation Media Law Identification in Libel Reference to Claimant Preliminary Issues Corporate Defamation

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 6 Authorities cited 12 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

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What legal test determines if an alleged libel or slander refers to a claimant for the purpose of standing to sue?
  2. 2 Did the broadcast refer to Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited in its natural and ordinary meaning without extrinsic evidence?

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by failing to apply the established test for reference, which requires considering whether a hypothetical reasonable viewer acquainted with Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited would identify them as the subject of the broadcast. The broadcast's focus on Dyson as a British company, together with facts known to such a viewer, meant the claimants were referred to in the broadcast.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order set aside that 'based solely on intrinsic evidence in the broadcast, the broadcast does not refer to the second and third claimants'.
  • Court concludes that a hypothetical reasonable viewer acquainted with Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited would identify them as referred to in the broadcast.