Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09335-19 Dyson Technology Limited v Mail Online
Summary of Complaint
1. Dyson
Technology Limited complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation
that Mail Online breached Clause
1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “James Dyson reveals his
company’s new global HQ will be a Singapore nightclub and former power station
after the pro-Brexit inventor announced he was quitting UK”, published on
29 November 2019.
2. The article
reported that Dyson’s “new global HQ had been revealed”; namely a former power
station in Singapore. The article stated that this “move” was revealed after
Sir James Dyson had “announced he was quitting the UK”. The article contained a
picture of the new HQ captioned “new home: Singapore’s former St. James Power
Station…is set to become the new global headquarters of Dyson”. The current HQ
in Britain was also pictured, captioned “old home: Dyson is moving its
headquarters from its campus in Malmesbury, Wiltshire (pictured) to Singapore”.
3. The article went on to claim
that “the company’s move to Asia will mean that Dyson is no longer a British-registered firm
and Singapore will become its main tax base”. The article reported
that Sir James Dyson
“abandons Britain despite his vocal support for Brexit” and that this had
attracted claims of “’staggering hypocrisy’”. The article quoted a named
politician as saying that “James Dyson…is
ditching Britain”. The last sentence of the article claimed that “4,500 work for Dyson in the UK” and that “Relocating the HQ
will not cut staffing”.
4. The
complainant said that references to Dyson “quitting”, “ditching” and
“abandon[ing]” the UK were inaccurate. They said that this gave the impression
that the company was planning a wholesale and permanent departure from the country
when, in fact, it was merely establishing a global headquarters in Singapore.
It emphasised that this would not affect
its growing investment in the UK nor lead to a reduction in its UK workforce.
It said that the misleading impression was reinforced by numerous references to
a “move” or “switch”; as well as by the captions used for the pictures of the
current and new headquarters, describing each as “old home” and “new home”
respectively. It said that the statement in the last sentence about the relocation
of headquarters not affecting UK staffing levels was hidden from the reader and
contradicted, rather than clarified, earlier statements in the article about
Dyson “quitting” the UK.
5. The
complainant also said that the claim that “the
company’s move to Asia will mean that Dyson is no longer a British-registered
firm and Singapore will become its main tax base” was inaccurate. It said that
“Dyson” could only mean the entire group of companies operating as part of one
business, especially as the article did not particularise Dyson’s corporate
structure. It said that Dyson includes a number of separate companies and the
establishment of a new headquarters would not affect the residence of companies
currently registered in the UK; for example, Dyson’s UK operating, sales and
trading companies will all remain registered here.
6. It stated that the ordinary meaning
readers would take from the phrase “main tax base”, was the place where Dyson
paid the most tax. It said that Dyson paid most tax in the UK, and that the
statement was therefore inaccurate. It said that the majority of its IP-related
revenue, fundamental to its business, was assessed for tax purposes in the UK.
Finally, it said that the establishment of a headquarters in Singapore will not
affect where and how the revenue and profits of the group are taxed. In any
event, if the publication had relied on where the company was registered as the
basis for where Dyson’s “main tax base” will be, this too was incorrect as the
tax residence of Dyson’s current UK companies will not be affected by the
establishment of a headquarters in Singapore. Finally, the complainant said
that no attempt was made to contact it for comment prior to publication and
that the article had caused it considerable damage, as it relies on the
goodwill of UK customers.
7. The
publication did not accept that the article breached the Code. It stated that
it had relied on a wire report by an international press agency and numerous
other articles, that appeared unchallenged in at least nine publications over
the previous year, with respect to the claims that Dyson was moving its global
headquarters and would therefore “no longer be a British-registered firm” with Singapore becoming “its main tax
base”. It did not
dispute that Dyson’s UK trading, sales and operating entities will remain
registered in the UK. However, it stated that the holding company for the Dyson
group was now resident in Singapore; as was Sir James Dyson, the person with
significant control over the group. This, it said, was sufficient to claim that
Dyson will “no longer be a British-registeredfirm”
with Singapore becoming “its main tax base”; claims that were, in its view, not
significant in the context of the article as a whole, which it said focused on
the move of the headquarters to Singapore.
8. In addition, it said that
the basis of the main claims that Dyson is “quitting” and “abandon[ing]” the UK
was made clear in the article, namely that Dyson’s global headquarters and Sir
James Dyson himself have moved to Singapore, as well as other “senior
executives”. In any event, it said that the article had made clear that “4,500
work for Dyson in the UK” and that “Relocating the HQ will not cut staffing”.
9. The publication offered to consider
a statement for inclusion. The complainant rejected this.
Relevant Code Provisions
10. Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care
not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images,
including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be correction, promptly and with due
prominence, and –where appropriate- an apology published. In cases involving
IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
Findings of the Committee
11. The claim
that “the company’s move to Asia will mean
that Dyson is no longer a British-registered firm and Singapore will become its
main tax base” had appeared verbatim in articles by other publications during
2019 and originated in a wire report from a respected international press
agency. In the context of this claim, which remained unchanged or unchallenged
in the public domain on the websites of a large number of publications, it was
reasonable to rely on this; especially as this phrase appeared to be a publicly
available statement of fact. There was no breach of Clause 1(i).
12. Dyson’s
holding company is registered in Singapore; and Sir James Dyson, with
significant control over the group, is usually resident there. However, this
did not mean that “Dyson
is no longer a British-registered firm”. It was not in dispute that the country
where Dyson’s UK companies were registered would be unaffected by the move of
headquarters, Sir James’ residence or the new residence position of the holding
company. The phrase that “Dyson is no longer a
British-registered firm” was therefore significantly inaccurate, where the
article did not make clear that Dyson would still be registered in Britain
through its UK companies. As the publication did not offer to correct this
significant inaccuracy, there was a breach of Clause 1(ii).
13. After establishing a breach of
Clause 1(ii) in relation to the claim that “Dyson is no longer a British-registered firm”, the
Committee then considered the dispute about the meaning of the phrase “main tax
base”. The complainant said it meant where Dyson paid the most tax, which was
in the UK. The publication said it was where Dyson was registered and was
liable for tax, which it said was in Singapore. It was not in dispute that
Dyson paid the most tax in the UK. The complainant also confirmed that where
and how the profits and revenues of Dyson are taxed will be unaffected by the
move of headquarters, which the publication was unable to successfully refute.
Finally, the newspaper had failed to demonstrate that Dyson will no longer be
registered in the UK. Therefore, by any definition, the newspaper had failed to
demonstrate that Dyson’s “main tax base” would “become” Singapore. This
misleading statement was significant because it suggested that tax currently
paid, and profits currently assessed for tax in the UK, would move overseas;
whereas the complainant had confirmed that this was not the case. As the
publication did not offer to correct this significant inaccuracy, there
was a breach of Clause 1(ii).
14. Under the
terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice, newspapers have the right to
editorialise and campaign. That Dyson was “quitting” and “abandon[ing]” Britain
was clearly the newspaper’s characterisation of events. The basis of the
characterisation was made clear, namely that the company was moving its global
headquarters from Britain to Singapore; a fact that was referenced five times
in the headline, sub-headline and first few sentences. These claims were also
clearly a reference to Sir James Dyson personally, the headline, for example,
had referred to the “pro-Brexit inventor” quitting the UK. It had not been in
dispute that Sir James was usually resident in and had purchased new property
in Singapore. These specific claims did not render the article, as a whole,
significantly misleading as to Dyson’s activities; particularly where it went
on to clarify that Dyson employs 4,500 people in the UK and that “the move will
not cut staffing”. In these circumstances, the publication had not failed to
take care over the accuracy of these claims. Nor did either constitute a
significant inaccuracy or misleading statement. There was no breach Clause 1.
15. The
reference to Dyson “ditching” Britain was clearly presented as the comments of
a named politician reacting to the news of Dyson’s move of headquarters. As the
Editors’ Code makes clear, newspapers have a right to publish individuals’
views, where they do so accurately and distinguish clearly between comment,
conjecture and fact. Where these comments were clearly presented as the views
of a named politician and the complainant did not dispute that they had been
accurately reported, there was no breach of Clause 1.
16. The
newspaper’s photo captions, “old home” and “new home”, were clearly a reference
to Dyson’s old and new global headquarters respectively, which were pictured
above each caption. Where it was not in dispute that the global headquarters
was moving to Singapore, there was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
17. The
complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1(ii).
Remedial Action Required
18. Having
upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be
required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the
Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or
adjudication. The nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
19.
The Committee considered that the article gave a misleading account of Dyson’s
“main tax base” and inaccurately claimed it was no longer a British registered
firm. However, these inaccuracies did not affect the main thrust of the
article, which was reporting on the move of headquarters. The Committee also
noted that these inaccuracies had appeared unchallenged in a range of other
publications previously, which the newspaper had here relied upon. In light of
these considerations, the Committee concluded that a correction was the
appropriate remedy.
20. This correction should be added to the article and appear as a standalone correction in the online
corrections and clarifications column. This wording should only include
information required to correct the inaccuracy: that the article had claimed
that the move of Dyson’s global headquarters “will mean that Dyson is no longer
a British-registered firm and Singapore will become its main tax base”; that
Dyson will remain registered in Britain through its UK companies; and that the
newspaper had failed to demonstrate that its “main tax base” would become
Singapore. The wording should also be agreed with IPSO in advance and should
make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the
Independent Press Standards Organisation. If the publication intends to
continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the
article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended,
the correction should be published as a footnote which explains the amendments
that have been made.
Date complaint received: 05/12/2019
Date decision issued: 26/08/2020
Back to ruling listing