The Duke of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Limited
[2023] EWHC 3120 (KB)
Sir James Dyson v MGN Limited
1 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3092 (KB)
High Court
Sir James Dyson sued a newspaper for calling him a hypocrite after he moved his company's main office to Singapore following Brexit. The judge said the newspaper had a right to express its opinion (even if strongly worded) and that Dyson hadn't proven the article seriously harmed his reputation.
Key Facts
- •Sir James Dyson brought a libel claim against MGN Limited (publisher of the Daily Mirror) over an article that called him a hypocrite who "screwed his country" by moving Dyson's global head office to Singapore after supporting Brexit.
- •Nicklin J previously determined the meaning of the article as an opinion that Dyson was a hypocrite for supporting Brexit and then moving the global head office to Singapore.
- •The Defendant argued honest opinion as a defense.
- •The Claimant argued that he had suffered serious harm to his reputation.
- •Dyson's corporate restructuring involved establishing new holding companies in Singapore, and eventually a new global headquarters there, while maintaining significant UK operations and investments.
Legal Principles
Honest Opinion defense under Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013
Defamation Act 2013
Serious Harm requirement under Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013
Defamation Act 2013
The scope of the honest opinion defense allows consideration of facts beyond those explicitly stated in the article, provided they relate to the same subject matter and are substantially true.
Lowe v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] QB 580; Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345; Joseph v Spiller [2010] UKSC 53; Riley v Murray [2021] EWHC 3437 (QB) and [2022] EWCA Civ 1146
In determining whether an honest opinion could be held, the court considers the overall context, but the omission of contextual facts does not invalidate the defense unless those omitted facts fundamentally alter the complexion of the stated facts.
Branson v Bower [2002] QB 737; Gatley on Libel and Slander
"Serious harm" must be proven; an inferential case is possible but requires sufficient evidence and inherent probabilities.
Lachaux v Independent Print Media Ltd [2019] UKSC 27; Sivananthan v Vasikaran [2022] EWHC 2938 (KB)
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The Claimant failed to prove serious harm to his reputation, and the Defendant successfully defended the claim on the grounds of honest opinion.
Honest opinion defence upheld.
The court found the factual basis of the opinion to be substantially true, and that an honest person could have held the opinion expressed, even considering the broader context.
Serious harm not proven.
The court considered factors such as the article's tone, the time elapsed since the events, and the existence of other, potentially more damaging publications. The court found the overall impact on Dyson's reputation was not 'serious' within the meaning of the Defamation Act 2013.