One of the key elements of a defamation claim is that the person or company making the claim must be identifiable by reference to the defamatory comment made. In some situations, it will be patently obvious that the claimant is the person or company referred to. By way of example, if they are identified by their full name and address or by their job title where there is only one such job title, such as the Prime Minister, it will be obvious to the reasonable listener the identity of the individual referred to.
Some cases will be less clear-cut. For example. where there is a group of companies and a statement is made about the generic brand name. It may be the case that all group companies could bring a claim but each case will turn on its own facts and will be dictated by whether the hypothetical reasonable reader or viewer acquainted with the claimant would have understood the comments made to have been made about the specific group company/companies that are making the claim.
An example of this nuance can be seen in the case of Dyson and others v Channel Four Television Corp and another [2023].
Dyson and others v Channel Four Television Corp and another
Case summary
The Claimants in this action are Sir James Dyson (the inventor of Dyson technology, which is famous for, amongst other things, its vacuum cleaners) and two British-registered Dyson companies. The Defendants are the broadcasters of Channel 4 News, which broadcast a news piece, which Lord Justice Dingemans and Lord Justice Warby summarised as follows:
“5. The broadcast referred to “Dyson, genius at cleaning carpets” and asked “has this iconic British brand lost credibility?”. It recorded that “we speak to ex-employees of ATA, who suffered abuse, inhuman work conditions, and in one case, even torture, while they were helping to make Dyson products on wages of £9 per day …” and asked “how could work conditions have got so bad, and why wasn’t it picked up?”. The broadcast stated “it is one of Britain’s most iconic companies but tonight Dyson is facing claims of appalling abuse and exploitation in the factories in Malaysia where its cordless vacuums and other appliances are made”, and referred to Dyson being “a flagship company in Britain”.
6. There was footage showing a Dyson demonstration store, with the name Dyson showing on the outside of the shop with Sir James Dyson, the founder of the Dyson group, saying “we are in a Dyson demo store where you can try out our technology”. There was a short interview with Oliver Holland, a partner at Leigh Day solicitors, saying “Dyson depicts itself as a very responsible company and ethical, so they should have known what was happening”. It also featured an interview with Michelle Shi, described as “Global Manufacturing and Procurement Director at Dyson in Singapore”.”
At first instance, the Judge found that the news piece could not properly have been interpreted to have referred to the British-based companies but rather would be understood to be in relation to the Singapore-based division of the Dyson Group. The Judge further confirmed that the news piece could not properly be interpreted to be referring to Sir James Dyson personally. The Second and Third Defendants appealed on the basis that the Judge in the preliminary issue hearing had conducted an overly complex analysis, ‘which was at odds with how it would have been understood by a reasonable viewer, watching it once’.
The appeal Judges agreed. The appeal Judges felt that the reference to matters such as ‘this iconic British brand’ were sufficient to lead a reasonable viewer acquainted with the Claimants to conclude that the news piece was claiming that the Claimants operated the shops that sold the products produced by ATA.
This case is a reminder that pleading of detail is very important in defamation cases, especially where the arguments about identification in the defamatory statements complained of are not immediately apparent on its face.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in private litigation, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims. He is also recommended by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us