The recent ruling in Dyson and others v Channel Four Television Corp and another has significant implications for defamation claims, particularly concerning the identification of the claimant. The Court of Appeal has clarified that the correct approach to determining whether a statement refers to the claimant is to consider the broadcast in light of the knowledge possessed by a reasonable hypothetical viewer about the claimant companies. This approach was derived from the test in Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd.
The Court of Appeal upheld Dysons' appeal, where the broadcast referred to 'Dyson' but did not specify any particular companies within the Dyson group. The court found that a reasonable viewer acquainted with the claimant companies would have known that Dyson Ltd was Dyson’s UK trading name and that Dyson Technology Ltd employed members of Dyson’s executive team and retained advisers to protect Dyson's reputation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, demonstrating that the identification of the claimant can be based on the broader context and the knowledge of the audience, rather than explicit mention in the publication.Â
What does this outcome mean?
This ruling underscores the importance of considering the audience's perspective and their existing knowledge about the claimant when assessing whether a defamatory statement refers to the claimant. It also highlights that the intention of the defendant is irrelevant; what matters is whether reasonable people would understand the words to refer to the claimant.
Comentários