Sir James Dyson’s defamation claim against Channel 4 has been dismissed. After a High Court judge ruled on the broadcast claiming that the exploitation of workers in the factories that supplied his company did not dishonor him.
The billionaire sued the station and Independent Television News (ITN) over the broadcast of Channel 4’s news program on February 10.
At a hearing earlier this month, the court said the show reported on a lawsuit filed against the vacuum giant by several workers at a Malaysian factory that previously supplied products to Dyson.
The show, estimated to have been watched by millions of viewers, ATA Industrial workers who said they faced abuse and “inhumane conditions” in factories that make vacuum cleaners and air filters. interview was featured.
Sir James claimed the broadcast falsely stated that he and his companies Dyson Technology and Dyson Limited were complicit in the systematic abuse and exploitation of workers.
However, in Monday’s ruling, Judge Nicklin dismissed Sir James’ defamation claim.
Only readers who have been hopelessly naive about how a global company like Dyson operates will find that one person, the founder, is responsible for the day-to-day management of what happened in the manufacturing plant that supplied that product. I was able to think that I owedJudge Nicklin
The judge was asked to decide on several preliminary issues, including whether the program had defamed Sir James and the two companies.
Hugh Tomlinson KC, who represents Sir James and his company, previously told the court that the broadcast targeted “Dyson means Sir James and Dyson’s company”.
However, Channel 4 and ITN’s Adam Wolanski KC claimed that the broadcast did not denigrate Sir James or mention the two companies.
Judge Nicklin found that although Sir James was named and depicted on the show, the entrepreneur was not defamed and his claim was dismissed.
he said:In-air allegations were clearly targeted, but targeting does not include the original plaintiff [Sir James].
“Only a reader who has been hopelessly naive about how a global company like Dyson operates can realize that one person, the founder, is responsible for the day-to-day management of what happened in the manufacturing plant that supplied that product.” I was able to think that I was indebted to
video of the day
Judge Nikulin was also asked to determine whether the two companies were mentioned in the broadcast.
The judge said the two “candidates” identified by the broadcast were a company doing business with ATA and a company involved in a so-called “PR campaign” accused of trying to cover up alleged abuses. I decided.
He added that if Dyson Technology Limited and Dyson Limited were not the companies mentioned, the defamation claim could not continue.
Judge Nicklin said, “Dyson may file amended claims on behalf of current corporate claimants or for claims brought by other companies in the Dyson group.”
He added that he had not reached a “conclusive view” on the implications of the programs relating to the two companies.