Two Dyson companies have brought a Court of Appeal bid over a judge’s ruling about whether a broadcast that alleged the exploitation of factory workers referred to the firms.
Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited, along with Sir James Dyson himself, sued the broadcaster and Independent Television News (ITN) for libel over a broadcast of Channel 4’s news programme on February 10 2022.
The High Court previously heard the programme reported on a legal action brought against the vacuum cleaning giant by several workers at a Malaysian factory which previously supplied products to Dyson.
The programme was estimated to have been seen by millions of viewers, and featured interviews with workers at ATA Industrial, who said they faced abuse and “inhuman conditions” while at the factory, which manufactured vacuum cleaners and air filters.
Sir James and the two companies previously said the broadcast falsely claimed they were complicit in systematic abuse and exploitation of the workers.
In a preliminary ruling in October 2022, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed Sir James’ claim, finding he was not defamed.
The judge also found that, without considering external evidence, the broadcast had not referred to the two companies.
At the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, lawyers for the two companies made a bid to overturn this decision, describing it as an “error of law”.
Hugh Tomlinson KC, for the two firms, said the High Court judge “adopts a too legalistic analysis of the text of the broadcast” in his ruling.
The barrister said: “He sits back, he analyses the broadcast – and I’m not engaging with the fine details of that analysis, as one might expect it’s a perfectly sensible and credible analysis – but it’s just not what the reasonable viewer would do.”
Mr Tomlinson continued: “He’s saying it all depends on the ultimate factual situation and we say that’s the wrong way around.
“The ultimate factual situation doesn’t matter, it’s what viewers reasonably understand the factual situation to be.”
However, Adam Wolanski KC, for Channel 4 and ITN, said it would have been “impossible” for the High Court judge to have found the broadcast referred to the two companies based on the information he had.
He told the Court of Appeal: “The judge on intrinsic reference had next to nothing about these particular claimant companies and was therefore deprived of information that might have enabled him to link the allegations in the broadcast with a specific claimant.”
The barrister added: “Once the court appreciates the difficulty the judge had, it is readily understandable he was unable to conclude that the words related to these specific corporate claimants.”
The hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans, Lord Justice Birss and Lord Justice Warby is due to conclude on Tuesday with a decision expected at a later date.
