abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

3 Nov 2022

Author:
The Guardian

UK: High court dismisses James Dyson libel claim against Channel 4 News over allegations of worker exploitation at one of his suppliers’ factories

"High court dismisses James Dyson libel claim against Channel 4 News", 31 Oct 2022

A high court judge has dismissed a libel claim brought by Sir James Dyson against Channel 4 over allegations of exploitation of workers at one of his suppliers’ factories.

Dyson sued Channel 4 and ITN over the 10 February edition of Channel 4 News, which reported on legal action brought by several workers at a plant in Malaysia.

The billionaire entrepreneur claimed the broadcast falsely said he and his two companies – Dyson Technology and Dyson Ltd – were complicit in systematic abuse and exploitation of the workers.

But Mr Justice Nicklin disagreed, ruling that the report was not defamatory of Dyson because the allegations referred to none of the three parties.

The programme featured interviews with workers at ATA Industrial who said they faced abuse and “inhuman conditions” at the factory.

The judge was asked to decide several preliminary issues in the claim, including whether the programme defamed Dyson and the two companies...

Nicklin found that while Dyson was named and pictured in the programme, the entrepreneur was not defamed. Accordingly, his claim was dismissed...

The judge was also asked to decide whether the two companies were referred to in the broadcast. He found that two “candidates” identified by the broadcast would be a company trading with ATA and a company involved in a so-called PR operation accused of attempting to hide the alleged abuse.

He said that if Dyson Technology and Dyson Ltd were not those companies referred to, they would not be able to continue the libel claim.

“It may be possible for Dyson to put forward a revised claim on behalf of the current corporate claimants, or for claims to be brought by other companies in the Dyson group,” he said.

Nicklin added that he had not reached “any concluded view” on the meaning of the programme in relation to the two companies.

Timeline

Privacy information

This site uses cookies and other web storage technologies. You can set your privacy choices below. Changes will take effect immediately.

For more information on our use of web storage, please refer to our Data Usage and Cookies Policy

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

Analytics cookie

ON
OFF

When you access our website we use Google Analytics to collect information on your visit. Accepting this cookie will allow us to understand more details about your journey, and improve how we surface information. All analytics information is anonymous and we do not use it to identify you. Google provides a Google Analytics opt-out add on for all popular browsers.

Promotional cookies

ON
OFF

We share news and updates on business and human rights through third party platforms, including social media and search engines. These cookies help us to understand the performance of these promotions.

Your privacy choices for this site

This site uses cookies and other web storage technologies to enhance your experience beyond necessary core functionality.