Key Facts
- •Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited (appellants) sued Channel Four and ITN (respondents) for libel.
- •The libel concerned a Channel Four News report alleging abuse and exploitation in Malaysian factories producing Dyson products.
- •The report referred to "Dyson" without explicitly naming the appellant companies.
- •The High Court judge ruled that the broadcast did not refer to the appellants based solely on intrinsic evidence.
- •The appellants appealed, arguing the judge applied the wrong test for identifying whether a publication refers to a claimant.
Legal Principles
To establish libel, a publication must refer to the claimant. This can be through intrinsic evidence (words themselves leading those acquainted with the claimant to believe they are referred to) or extrinsic evidence (facts known to readers/viewers linking them to the allegations).
Knupffer v London Express [1944] AC 116; Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239; Gatley on Libel and Slander; Duncan and Neill on Defamation
The test for identifying reference involves a hypothetical reasonable reader/viewer acquainted with the claimant. The court imputes knowledge of the claimant's attributes to this hypothetical viewer.
Knupffer v London Express [1944] AC 116; Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239
The court should exercise disciplined restraint when interfering with a judge's findings on meaning or identification.
Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
The High Court judge erred in applying the wrong test for reference, failing to consider the knowledge a reasonable viewer acquainted with the appellants would possess. The broadcast's focus on Dyson as an iconic British brand, combined with the appellants' established attributes (as pleaded), sufficiently identified them as the subject of the allegations.
The order stating the broadcast did not refer to the appellants was set aside.
The Court of Appeal found that a reasonable viewer acquainted with the appellants would identify them as being referred to in the broadcast.
The Court of Appeal cautioned against using preliminary issues on identification or reference.
Such issues can easily become overly complex, potentially failing to resolve the case and wasting time and resources.