Home / TMT / Reputation management / Defamation

Legal News

Court rules on meaning and imputation of Dyson article (Dyson and another v Associated Newspapers Ltd)

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
Published on: 11 February 2020
Published by a LexisNexis TMT expert

Table of contents

  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

TMT analysis: The High Court has issued a preliminary ruling upon the meaning of articles published by the Daily Mail concerning Sir James Dyson and his wife. It also held that these articles contained defamatory imputations which were statements of facts and not opinion.

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom

Related documents:

4 News
View More
5 Practice notes
View More
3 Q&As
View More
Powered by Lexis+®

Related documents:

4 News
View More
5 Practice notes
View More
3 Q&As
View More

Popular documents

Defamation and malicious falsehood—publication

Defamation and malicious falsehood—publicationThis Practice Note examines the role of publication in an action for defamation or malicious falsehood. It reviews key case law and legislation, and considers who may be primarily and secondarily responsible for publication, what constitutes publication,

Reputational damage claims—alternative causes of action

Reputational damage claims—alternative causes of actionThis Practice Note considers the relationship between causes of action for reputational damage claims which may provide alternatives to a defamation claim. The claims considered include malicious falsehood, misuse of private information, breach

Defamation—limitation

Defamation—limitationThe ordinary time limit for defamation and malicious falsehood claimsA claimant must commence a claim for defamation within one year from the date on which the cause of action accrues, namely the date on which the defamatory statement is first published (section 4A of the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some