Technology company Dyson has ended its libel claim against Channel 4 News and the programme’s producer ITN after more than two years of proceedings.
Channel 4 and ITN said Dyson ended its lengthy legal action after they filed a 184-page defence at the High Court.
Two Dyson companies – Dyson Ltd, the brand’s UK trading company, and Dyson Technologies Ltd, which holds Dyson’s intellectual property, technology, and brand rights – sued over a February 2022 report about allegations of exploitation and “appalling” conditions in factories in Malaysia where Dyson products were being manufactured by a company called ATA.
A group of former migrant workers are continuing to pursue legal action against Dyson, seeking compensation. The company denies any liability and the case will next be heard at the Court of Appeal.
Related
A joint statement from Channel 4 and ITN said: “Despite prolonged and costly court proceedings, Channel 4 News was determined to defend its fair, accurate, and duly impartial reporting. The freedom to report without fear or favour is essential to both the industry and a thriving democracy.
“Today’s outcome underscores the vital role of robust, independent investigative reporting that is clearly in the public interest and sets an important precedent for the future of investigative journalism in the UK.”
Dyson founder Sir James Dyson was initially part of the claim but stopped pursuing the case on his own behalf after a High Court judge said the programme did not defame him.
Dyson denied suggestions that its case could be characterised as a SLAPP – meaning strategic litigation against public participation, or a lawsuit designed to intimidate and silence journalists or other critical parties.
Dyson said in a statement: “We strenuously deny the false claims made by Channel 4 News in its broadcast. It is ATA – an independent manufacturer – that must answer questions about its treatment of its workers in Malaysia. Dyson will never condone the mistreatment of workers anywhere in the world and defends its reputation when it is necessary.
“It is categorically wrong to describe this defamation action as a SLAPP. This was a legitimate complaint against false claims made in a broadcast which harmed Dyson’s reputation. Like anyone, Dyson is allowed to exercise its right and defend its reputation through the Courts.”
However Charlie Holt of the UK Anti-Slapp Coalition told Channel 4 News: “These legal tactics are used by anyone who seeks to block accountability. We’ve seen them used by Russian oligarchs, by corporations such as Dyson, and other powerful figures. And they’re used against a range of different communities seeking to exercise their democratic rights to speak out and advance accountability.
“These lawsuits represent a form of legal bullying which are designed to force the target to retract their criticism. And they do that by using the litigation process to harass, intimidate and drive up costs.”
The case was first launched by Sir James and his companies in February 2022 after first attempting to force Channel 4 News to take down its reporting and publish a correction and apology. They argued that the broadcast falsely said he and his companies were complicit in systematic abuse and exploitation of the workers.
In October of that year, High Court judge Mr Justice Nicklin found that while Sir James was named and pictured in the programme, the entrepreneur was not defamed, and his claim was dismissed.
He also found that the broadcast did not refer to Dyson Ltd or Dyson Technologies Ltd so they could not have been defamed.
They took the case to the Court of Appeal, where in July last year they were given the right to appeal the previous judgment because the “hypothetical reasonable viewer” acquainted with the companies would have believed the news programme in question referred to them, meaning they are able to take action. The case then returned to the High Court.
Sir James lost a separate libel case against the publisher of the Mirror in December after a High Court judge decided he had not been caused “serious harm” by a column that described him as “the vacuum cleaner tycoon who championed Vote Leave due to the economic opportunities it would bring to British industry before moving his global head office to Singapore”.
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
