The judge separated the fact from the opinion, and found that the facts were true, but even if they weren't the defence of honsest opinion was made out to his satisfaction.
I don't think that can be true. The major part of the judgment revolves around subsection 4a) of the honest opinion defence. The opinion and the facts are intrinsically bound together. Having the honest opinion relies on the fact being proved. There are pages and pages of discussion about the meaning of moving a global head office, relocating a business etc. in order to determine whether it was a fact that Dyson did actually move its global head office to Singapore
(4) The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of —
(a) any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published;