Decision of the Complaints Committee – 11161-22 Park's of Hamilton Limited v The Scottish Sun
Summary of Complaint
1. Park's
of Hamilton Limited, Park's of Hamilton (Holdings) Limited, Park's of Hamilton
(Townhead Garage) Limited, Park's of Hamilton (Coach Hirers) Limited, Douglas
Park Limited and Park's (Ayr) Limited (referred to collectively in
this decision as the complainant) complained to
the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Scottish Sun (News UK)
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Deal cinch perfect for Gers now”, published on 19 June 2022.
2. The
article was a comment piece by a regular columnist which referenced a dispute
arising from a sponsorship deal entered into between the car retailer cinch and
the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL), and the position of Rangers
FC that being required to display cinch’s branding would be in conflict with a
pre-existing sponsorship arrangement with the complainant. The article
commented that a “sponsor gives you money NOT to display their logo or mention
their products? That’s surely the commercial department’s dream”. It stated
that “[s]o everyone's a winner – including the SPFL, who after a year of
staying schtum over the whole silly misunderstanding now appear free to put
their side of the story given that Gers, via chairman Park's car company, have
broken a legally-binding confidentiality agreement. Should be interesting to
hear what’s included in the ‘full and frank narrative’ they’ve promised to
unleash’”.
3. The complainant said that the
article was inaccurate because it suggested that it had breached or procured
the breach of a legally-binding agreement. It said this was not
true. The complainant said the article was, therefore, in breach of
Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code and that the inaccuracy was significant as
it had the potential to cause harm to its reputation.
4. The publication did not accept a
breach of the Code. It said that the article was a light-hearted opinion piece
about the dispute but accepted that the reported claim that “Gers, via chairman Park's car company, have broken a
legally-binding confidentiality agreement” was a statement of
fact. It said that it had taken care over its accuracy by carefully
reviewing the terms of press releases which had been issued by both the
complainant and the SPFL. It said that the complainant had issued a lengthy
press release which offered detailed commentary on the arbitration proceedings
between the SPFL and Rangers FC., which the complainant had petitioned to
join. In response, the SPFL had issued its own press release: “We
note with interest [the complainant’s] version of events. We are currently
bound by the confidentiality of the legal process. Frustratingly, we have had
to keep our counsel throughout. However, we have written to Rangers and [the
complainant] seeking confirmation that this confidentiality no longer
applies…” The publication said that it was clear from the
press release issued by the SPFL that it considered that by commenting on the
arbitration proceedings, the complainant had breached the confidentiality of
the process. Whilst it accepted that the complainant had not
breached an agreement, it said that the report was not significantly inaccurate
in circumstances where the complainant had breached the confidentiality of the
arbitration process. The publication said that the confidentiality
of the arbitration process had been confirmed by the Inner House of
the Court of Session in a Judgment of 20 October 2021, in which the Lord
President said: "It is, of course, correct to describe arbitration as a
private process" and “The phrase occurs in the context of an arbitration
clause whose purpose is to prevent disputes relating to football and football
clubs being litigated in the public forum. The airing of such disputes may
carry a reputational risk to the game and its participants which the SFA, as
the supervisory body, will be keen to avoid”.
5. Whilst the publication did not
consider that the article required correction, it offered to publish the
following clarification in order to resolve the complaint:
On 19th June 2022, we published a
column by Bill Leckie headlined "Deal cinch perfect for Gers now" in
which it was stated that Rangers via chairman Douglas Park's car company had
broken a legally-binding confidentiality agreement. We were referring to the
private arbitration process between Rangers, Parks of Hamilton (Holdings) Ltd
and the SPFL. We are happy to clarify that Rangers had not entered into a
separate confidentiality agreement; rather it was the privacy of the
arbitration process itself that had been breached.
6. The complainant said that the
publication’s understanding of the situation was incorrect, and that it was not
in fact bound by any duty of confidentiality arising from the arbitration
process. The complainant said that it was not yet formally a party to the
arbitration proceedings and that because the information included in its press
release was already in the public domain, issuing the press release would not
have placed it in breach of any duty of confidentiality in any event. The
complainant reiterated that the article had made the specific claim that it had
breached a “legally-binding confidentiality agreement”, which the publication
had conceded was not the case. The complainant said that
even if it had breached the confidentiality of the arbitration process, which
it disputed for the reasons above, there was a material difference between the
two situations and the article was, therefore, significantly inaccurate.
7. In addition, the complainant did not
accept the clarification offered by the publication in resolution of the
complaint. It said the proposed wording contained a new inaccuracy that “the
privacy of the arbitration process” had been breached, which it said was not
the case and the proposed clarification therefore contained the same material
inaccuracy as the article under complaint.
8. The publication maintained that by
issuing its press release and speaking about the arbitration proceedings, the
complainant had breached the confidentiality of the process, by which it was
bound after successfully petitioning to join the proceedings. It
said that there was no practical distinction between breaching the
confidentiality of the arbitration process and breaching a confidentiality
agreement .
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.
Findings of the Committee
9. It was not in dispute that the
reported claim, that “Gers, via chairman Park's
car company, have broken a legally-binding confidentiality agreement” was a
statement of fact. The Committee considered that the reference to
the complainant in the statement amounted to a claim that it had breached or
had been responsible for the breach of a legally-binding
confidentiality agreement.
10. The publication had accepted that
it had not been able to demonstrate that the complainant had breached or had
been responsible for a breach of a confidentiality agreement. The Committee
noted that the publication had relied upon the press statements issued by the
complainant and the SPFL but that neither of the press statements
supported the reported claim. The SPFL had said that it was “currently bound by
the confidentiality of the legal process” and that it had “written to Rangers
and [the complainant] seeking confirmation that this confidentiality no longer
applies”. The Committee considered that the SPFL press statement fell far short
of being evidence that the complainant had breached a “legally-binding
confidentiality agreement”. Further, the article did not make clear that the
reported claim was conjecture based upon the press statements, or that the
claim was referring to the confidentiality of the arbitration process; instead,
the statement explicitly claimed that the complainant was in breach of a
legally-binding confidentiality agreement. The publication had not put this
allegation to the complainant in advance of publication and the complainant’s
position in relation to the reported claim had
not been included in the article. In these circumstances, the newspaper had
failed to take care not to publish inaccurate information, and there was a
breach of Clause 1(i).
11. The
Committee next considered the publication’s position that the reported
statement was not significantly inaccurate in circumstances where the
complainant had breached the confidentiality of the arbitration process; it
said that it was not material how the breach of confidentiality arose. However,
the publication had not demonstrated that a finding that the complainant had
breached the confidentiality of the arbitration process had been made, for
example by the arbitrator or by the court. In the absence of such a finding and
where the claim that the complainant had breached a legally binding agreement
had the potential to commercially harm its reputation, the inaccuracy was
significant and required correction under Clause 1(ii).
12. The publication had offered to
publish a clarification to the article – however the wording stated that it was
the “privacy of the arbitration process itself that had been breached” – where
no such finding had been made by the arbitrator or by the court. The proposed
wording, therefore, did not correct the inaccuracy in the article and there was
a breach of Clause 1(ii).
Conclusions
13. The complaint was upheld.
Findings of the Committee
14. 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.
15. The Committee had found that it was
significantly inaccurate to report that the complainant had broken a legally-binding confidentiality agreement.
The Committee had found a breach of Clause 1(ii) given that the correction
offered did not correct the inaccuracy. The appropriate remedy was, therefore,
the publication of an upheld adjudication.
16. The headline of the adjudication
must make clear that IPSO has upheld the complaint against The Scottish Sun and
must refer to its subject matter; it must be agreed with IPSO in advance. The
adjudication should be published on the same page of the newspaper as the
regular columnist’s column, with a reference to the adjudication in the
established corrections and clarifications column.
17. The terms of the adjudication for
publication are as follows:
Park's
of Hamilton Limited, Park's of Hamilton (Holdings) Limited, Park's of Hamilton
(Townhead Garage) Limited, Park's of Hamilton (Coach Hirers) Limited, Douglas
Park Limited and Park's (Ayr) Limited (referred to collectively as the
complainant) complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Scottish Sun (News UK) breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Deal cinch perfect for
Gers now”, published on 19 June 2022.
The article referenced
a dispute arising from a sponsorship deal entered into between the car retailer
cinch and the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL). It stated “that
Gers, via chairman Park's car company [the complainant], have broken a legally-binding
confidentiality agreement”.
The complainant said that the article
was inaccurate because it suggested that it had breached or procured the breach
of a legally-binding agreement. It said this was not true. The complainant said
the article was, therefore, in breach of Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code and that
the inaccuracy was significant as it had the potential to cause harm to its
reputation.
IPSO found that the publication was not
able to demonstrate that the complainant had breached, or had been responsible
for a breach, of a confidentiality agreement. Further, the article did not make
clear that the reported claim was conjecture based upon press statements issued
by the complainant and the SPFL. The publication had offered a correction,
however it did not correct the inaccuracy in the article. IPSO thus upheld the
complaint as a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code and ordered
the publication of this ruling.
Date complaint received: 13/08/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/03/2023