05886-24 Tan v mirror.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Celia Tan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Nightmare neighbour claims couple used daughter's 'deafening' drumming practice as weapon”, published on 9 October 2024.

2. The article reported a woman – the complainant – had “been ordered to pay £150,000” and “who had next door's gutters torn out during a £150,000 fight with her neighbours has been slammed for her ‘almost indescribable silliness’ and branded ‘psychologically incapable of acting reasonably’ by a judge”. The article went onto report that the judge “dismissed [the complainant’s] case, ordering her to pay the court bill - estimated pre-trial at around £150,000, with £77,500 up front towards [her neighbours’] bills. It finished by reporting, “the judgment was given in April, but not made public until this week after [the complainant’s] application to appeal was passed to High Court judges' case workers.”

3. The article contained an image of the complainant and her daughter which appeared to show them leaving court.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She said there was never a possibility of £150,000 as total costs, and this was not what she had been ordered to pay. The complainant supplied an order from the court which said she was to make an interim payment of £77,500, and confirmed the final approved cost was around £110,000.

5. The complainant also disputed that the judgment had been publicly released.

6. The complainant said the article was in breach of Clause 2 because she said the image of her leaving court was taken without her knowledge or consent.

7. The complainant said the article was in breach of Clause 3 because she said the publication had knowingly published misinformation about her. She said she considered the articles were intended to intimidate and harass her.

8. The complainant said the article was in breach of Clause 10 because she said the images of her outside court were taken of her covertly with a hidden camera.

9. The publication was first made aware of the complaint on 22 October 2024. Between 24 December 2024 and 26 February, the complaint was closed as the complainant stopped corresponding with IPSO. On 17 March, the publication and complainant were informed that the complaint would be proceeding to IPSO’s Complaints Committee for determination, and given seven days to make final comments.

10. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code, noting that the article made clear the court bill was “estimated pre-trial at £150,000, with £77,500 up front towards the [neighbour’s] bills.”. It said the judge stated during court proceedings that "the loser [of the court case] will have to spend £150,000 sorting it out", and that it was entitled to rely on this figure given by the judge. It supplied a copy of the notes to support this position, which included the £150,000 figure. It also cited an additional judgment from 15 April which stated that "there will be an Order for an interim payment on account of the Claimant’s costs in the sum of £80,000", with this figure not including the complainant’s own costs.

11. Notwithstanding the above, the publication said – during direct correspondence with the complainant on 5 November 2024 - that it would be “happy to amend the figure within the article to £110,000”.

12. After the complaint was first put to IPSO’s Complaints Committee, on 16 June 2025, the publication also said it would be content to publish the following correction at the top of the article:

“A previous version of this article reported as fact that Ms Tan had ‘been ordered to pay £150,000’. Although this was the amount estimated by the Judge at the time, the final approved cost was in fact £110,000. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly.”

13. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to report the judgment was made public. It said the judgment was provided to the reporter by the judge's clerk, which was approved by the judge himself.

14. The publication did not accept the complainant’s concerns about Clause 2 engaged the Clause. It said the publication did not require permission to publish the image of the complainant as it was taken in an open, public place, where she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Furthermore, it said the photograph showed the complainant’s likeness only, and did not disclose any private or personal information about her.

15. The publication did not accept the complainant’s concerns under Clause 3 or Clause 10 engaged the Code.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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 corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Clause 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*

i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent.

ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

Findings of the Committee

16. The Committee first considered whether the publication had taken care not to report inaccurate information in stating that the complainant had been ordered to pay £150,000. It was not in dispute that the judge had initially estimated the total costs for the case – which the complainant did not dispute she would be liable to pay – would be £150,000. The publication had accurately reported and kept a written record of information which had been heard in court: the judge’s remarks were a matter of legal record and it was entitled to rely on them for its reporting. The figure from the article was also supported by the earlier judgment the publication had cited.

17. Although information emerged during the investigation which indicated the figure for costs differed from what was initially reported, the Committee considered the publication had taken care over the accuracy of the information it had originally published. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

18. The Committee then considered whether reporting the complainant had been ordered to pay £150,000 instead of around £110,000 constituted a significant inaccuracy. The error related to the reporting of court proceedings, and a sanction against the complainant; the Committee therefore considered it to be significant and therefore in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii).

19. While the publication had proposed to correct the inaccurate information, it had not made this offer until nearly eight months after it was first made aware of the complaint. It had offered to amend the article, to instead refer to the £110,000 figure, during direct correspondence with the complainant. However, it had not proposed to publish a correction or clarification at this time, setting out that the original article was inaccurate and the correct position. For these reasons, the Committee did not consider that the correction was sufficiently prompt, as required by Clause 1 (ii), and there was therefore a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

20. Notwithstanding the above, the Committee noted that it considered the wording of the proposed correction to be sufficient in setting out the original inaccurate information and the correct position.

21. Legal documents are generally public due to the principle of open justice and there was no evidence presented which suggested this particular court case had been subject to any reporting restrictions. The publication was also able to produce a copy of the judgment. Considering these factors, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to report the judgement had been made public. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

22. Turning to the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2, the image of the complainant was of her entering the court building and was taken by a photographer in a public place, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. The image itself simply showed the complainant’s likeness as she exited the building; she was not engaged in an activity over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. As such, the Committee also did not consider the photographer had acted in an intrusive manner while taking the photographs nor that the image itself revealed anything private about the complainant. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider the image breached Clause 2.

23. Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when gathering news, including the nature and extent of their contacts with the subject of the story. While the Committee recognised the impact of the article on the complainant, it did not consider its publication constituted harassment. There was no breach of Clause 3.

24. Clause 10 relates to the obtaining of information by journalists through clandestine means or by deploying subterfuge – for instance, by using undercover reporters. The publication denied the image was taken using a hidden camera, and there was no evidence to suggest this was the case. Furthermore, the image did not show anything which could only have been revealed through the use of a clandestine device – for example an image had been taken covertly inside a private space – they simply showed the complainant in public. There was no breach of this Clause.

Conclusions

25. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

26. 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 an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

27. The Committee found it significantly was inaccurate to report the total costs the complainant had been ordered to pay were £150,000. The publication had made some effort to correct the record by offering to amend the article, and had offered to publish a correction – albeit it was offered nearly eight months after the publication was first made aware of the complaint. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge it was inaccurate to report the complainant had been ordered to pay £150,000 costs. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that the complainant had been ordered to pay around £110,000.

28. The wording of the correction proposed by the publication addressed the requirements of the Committee as set out above. However, given the delay in offering the correction, the Committee considered that the proposed wording offered by the publication should be accompanied by an additional sentence, making clear that the correction has been published following an upheld complaint from the Independent Press Standards Organisation

29. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. It considered that the location proposed by the publication – beneath the headline – was sufficiently prominent, taking into account the delay in offering the correction.

Date complaint received: 26/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/08/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The publication complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Reviewer found that the IPSO process was flawed, as the publication was not given the opportunity to set out its position regarding the alleged breaches of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code. The complaint was therefore returned to the Committee, following further investigation by IPSO, and the Committee issued an amended ruling.

The complainant also complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Reviewer did not find that the process was flawed in the way alleged by the complainant, and did not uphold the request for review.