Dyson v MGN Ltd [2022] EWHC 2469 (QB) (26 July 2022)

Dyson v MGN Ltd [2022] EWHC 2469 (QB) (26 July 2022)

The article's natural and ordinary meaning as regards the claimant is that he publicly supported the benefits of Brexit to British industry, yet following Brexit moved his global head office to Singapore, and by so doing was a hypocrite who had screwed the country and set a poor moral example to young people. The first part is a non-defamatory allegation of fact; the second is an expression of opinion that is defamatory at common law due to the imputation of hypocrisy and poor moral example, not dishonesty. The article sufficiently indicates the basis of the opinion.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2469 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Sir James Dyson; Defendant: MGN Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Determination of Meaning and Preliminary Issues Prior to Defence
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined: meaning as set out by the court; part fact, part opinion; overall defamatory at common law due to opinion; basis of opinion indicated.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning Determination, Defamatory Meaning, Fact Vs Opinion, Basis of Opinion
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning Determination Defamatory Meaning Fact Vs Opinion Basis of Opinion

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sir James Dyson

Claimant

MGN Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / Determination of Meaning and Preliminary Issues Prior to Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the article as regards the claimant?
  2. 2 Is the meaning defamatory at common law?
  3. 3 Is the article a statement of fact or opinion?

Ratio Decidendi

The article's natural and ordinary meaning as regards the claimant is that he publicly supported the benefits of Brexit to British industry, yet following Brexit moved his global head office to Singapore, and by so doing was a hypocrite who had screwed the country and set a poor moral example to young people. The first part is a non-defamatory allegation of fact; the second is an expression of opinion that is defamatory at common law due to the imputation of hypocrisy and poor moral example, not dishonesty. The article sufficiently indicates the basis of the opinion.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: meaning as set out by the court; part fact, part opinion; overall defamatory at common law due to opinion; basis of opinion indicated.

Orders

  • Claimant to amend Particulars of Claim to reflect court's determination of meaning.
  • Directions to be given for service and filing of Defence.