Sir James Dyson v MGN Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Johnson |
| Judgment Date | 09 October 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 2770 (KB) |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2022-000400 |
[2023] EWHC 2770 (KB)
Mr Justice Johnson
Case No: QB-2022-000400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Mr J Rushbrooke KC and Ms C Strong (instructed by Schillings International LLP) for the Claimant
Ms A Page KC, Mr B Gallop (instructed by MGN Ltd's Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
————(Approved)————
This is a pre-trial review in respect of the claimant's action for damages in libel, in respect of two publications made by the defendant in the Daily Mirror Newspaper and its associated website in January 2022. The trial is due to begin on 20 November 2023, with a time estimate of five days, albeit both parties consider that the contested evidence will occupy a small fraction of that time. The claimant seeks to strike out part of the defendant's re-amended defence, the defendant seeks permission to re-reamend the defendant.
Following a trial of preliminary issues as to meaning, Nicklin J ruled that the words about which complaint was made, meant as follows:
“1. The Claimant had publicly supported the benefits of Brexit to British industry, yet following Brexit he had moved the global head office of his business to Singapore
2. by so doing, the Claimant was a hypocrite who had screwed the country and who set a poor moral example to young people.”
Nicklin J held that the first part of this meaning was not defamatory of the claimant at common law. He held that the second part of the meaning amounted to an expression of opinion, which is defamatory of the claimant at common law. He ruled that the publication indicated the basis of the opinion for the purpose of section 3(3) of the Defamation Act 2013.
The defendant says that the allegations that the claimant's business decisions following Brexit, showed him to be a hypocrite were widely made, and were not limited to the publication which founds this claim. It says that this claim is an abuse of the court's process, because its pursuit is disproportionate. Further, it denies that the articles have caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation, as required by section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
The defendant also advances a defence of honest opinion pursuant to section 3 of the 2013 Act. Section 3 provides that the defence of honest opinion arises where the conditions set out in that section are met. The defence of honest opinion is defeated if the claimant shows that the defendant did not hold the opinion. In this case, the claimant does not allege that the defendant did not hold the opinion, so there is no question of the defence being defeated if the conditions for the defence to arise are otherwise established.
The first condition is that the statement complained of is a statement of opinion. Nicklin J has found that that condition is made out. The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion. Nicklin J has found that that condition is established. The third condition is satisfied if (so far as is relevant to the present case) an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published. An averment to that effect is made at paragraph 12 of the defence, which was filed on 21 September 2022. Particulars are given at paragraphs 13 to 20. Paragraph 19 says:
“After Brexit the claimant moved parts of his business, including the global head office of his business, out of the jurisdiction:-
19.1 On 23 October 2018, Dyson announced to staff in an internal memo reported in The Guardian, that it had chosen Singapore over the UK as the place to manufacture its proposed electric car. The news came after it had been reported that Dyson had previously identified and shortlisted a UK site for manufacturing.
19.2 In January 2019, Dyson announced its decision to relocate the company by establishing their global headquarters in Singapore. In announcing the move and in response to being asked if Dyson could still be called one of Britain's best success stories, Jim Rowan, Dyson's Chief CEO said it should now be called a ‘Global technology company’.”
The defence has been amended and reamended, but subject to an application that was made at this pretrial review, there has been no amendment to paragraph 19. The claimant served a reply on 11 November 2022. At paragraphs 23 to 25, the claimant responds to paragraph 19 of the defence:
“23. As to paragraph 19, it is denied that the claimant or, for that matter Dyson, moved the alleged parts of his or its business out of the jurisdiction, save in the respect that as pleaded below, a global headquarters was established in Singapore.
24. As to paragraph 19.1 –
24.1 it is admitted that an internal memo from the then Chief Executive Officer, Jim Rowan, dated 23 October 2018, to all Global staff, it was announced that the Dyson board of directors had decided that Dyson's first automotive manufacturing facility would be located in Singapore. This announcement was made three months before the alleged move of Dyson's head office to Singapore, referred to in the articles, and it is denied that it is relevant to or capable of providing any support for the pleaded defence of honest opinion. The claimant will refer to the full contents of the memo which set out accurately and in clear and cogent terms, the reasons behind its decision, including in particular Dyson's existing footprint and team in Singapore, that country's advanced manufacturing expertise, the access it provided to high growth markets, as well as an extensive supply chain and highly skilled workforce. The memo also referred correctly to the enormous sums that Dyson was at time investing in Hullavington Airfield in connection with the automotive project. This self-evidently represented a massive commitment to this country, and was consistent rather than undermining the claimant's publicly stated belief in the benefits of Brexit for British industry.
24.2 It is admitted and averred that some time prior to the announcement in the memo, it had been reported that Dyson had identified and shortlisted various sites around the world for manufacturing of the electric vehicle and that a UK site had been included on the list as well as a Chinese site.
24.3 It is, in any event, denied that by making the decision that it did, the Dyson Board or the claimant moved any part of its or his automotive business out of this jurisdiction. There was no automotive manufacturing or assembly business to move, and the project did not in the end proceed to the manufacturing stage, owing to concerns as to its commercial viability. Still less, did Dyson or the claimant thereby act in a way which contradicted, undermined or rendered hypocritical the public statements relied upon at paragraph 18.
25. As to paragraph 19.2 –
25.1 it is admitted and averred that –
(a) on 22 January 2019, Dyson announced that it had decided to establish its global headquarters in Singapore and,
(b) this decision was made by the respective boards of Dyson James Group Limited, and its then parent company Weybourne Group Limited.
25.2 It is denied, however, that this was a ‘decision to relocate the company’, in the sense alleged. Although as a result of the restructuring that followed, two newly registered Singapore registered companies, Weybourne Holdings PTE Ltd and Dyson Holdings PTE Ltd, became the top holding companies of the Group, in place of the UK holding company, Weybourne Group Ltd, and the UK company Dyson James Group Ltd became an intermediate holding company within the Dyson Group. Its two main operating UK entities, Dyson Technology Ltd and Dyson Ltd, did not change their functions in the UK, and they were not moved to Singapore.
25.3 The second sentence is admitted, and it is averred that notably the defence omits the words immediately following those quoted. Mr Rowan went on to say, ‘…and in fact we have been a global company for some time. Most successful companies these days are global.’ The claimant will refer to the whole of Mr Rowan's statements as may be necessary for the full context and effect of what he said, which has been omitted from the defence, including his reiteration of Dyson's commitment to and investment in the UK, and the negligible tax implications of the decision. As was reported by the BBC's business correspondent, Theo Leggatt at the time, in terms which contrast starkly with those published by the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial