Resolution
Statement – 17676-23 Logan and Logan v
Daily Mail
Summary of Complaint
1.
Kenny and Gabby Logan complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Daily Mail breached
Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Tax scheme firm paid £500,000 to Gabby Logan”, published on 28 February 2023.
2. The article reported that “firms linked to” the
complainants “were paid more than £500,000 to promote major tax avoidance plans
to celebrity friends” and that “payments between 2010 and 2013 were apparently
made for events such as Royal Ascot – entertaining ‘wealthy individuals’ and
introducing them to the venture”. The article went on to report that “questions
have arisen after a court battle revealed that companies linked to the Logans
received £518,405 in commission for introducing ‘customers or potential
customers’”.
3. The article then referred to a named company, which it
said “sold hundreds of tax avoidance products” before going “bust in 2017,
leaving unpaid debts that are now being pursued through the courts, including
£518,405 plus interest of about £500,000 from one firm controlled by the Logans
and another by Mr Logan and a friend.” It also reported that there was “no
suggestion of illegality or wrongdoing on the part of Mrs Logan [or] her
husband Kenny” and that Mr Logan “attended ‘numerous’ events on behalf of
Welbeck to entertain potential customers, lawyers representing firms linked to
the Logans said.”
4. This version of the article ended by stating that “A
hearing is scheduled for May 3 and, if it goes ahead, Mr and Mrs Logan could be
called as witnesses. They did not respond to requests for comment last night.”
5. The article also appeared online in
substantially the same format under the headline “BBC star Gabby Logan and her
husband Kenny were paid more than £500,000 to promote major tax avoidance
scheme to their celebrity friends”. This version of the article was accompanied
by two bullet-points underneath the headline; one bullet-point said that “Gabby
Logan and husband paid more than £500k to promote a tax scheme”.
6. The online version of the article included an
additional statement from a named individual; this said: “Companies controlled
by Kenny Logan and Gabby Logan worked with [company] to sell tax avoidance
schemes and tried to disguise their income from this as 'loans' to avoid paying
(yet more) tax. We consider the companies' accounts are clear - these payments
were treated as loans, which now have to be repaid.” It also reported that:
“Documents filed at the High Court on behalf of companies connected with the Logans
say that the purpose of these firms was to ‘introduce wealthy individuals to
[named company] in order that they might buy financial services offered by
these business, adding ‘in consequence of these introductions and the business
that resulted from commission became payable.”
7.
The complainants said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1,
first noting that they had not received £500,000 to promote “major tax
avoidance schemes”. They said that it was also false to say that they had
received payments from such a scheme in return for attending events with
“celebrities” and introducing them to any such “venture”, or that they had
links to any “firm” which received commission for introducing potential clients
to a tax-avoidance scheme.
8.
The complainants also said that they had no knowledge of the court hearing
referenced in the article as being scheduled for 3 May, or of any “court
battle” which had “revealed” that “companies linked to the Logans received
£518,405 in commission for introducing ‘customers or potential customers’”.
They said that no company linked to them was involved in any such legal
proceedings. They also said that the named company referenced in the article
had gone “bust” in 2014, not 2017 as claimed by the article.
9.
Finally, the complainants said that it was “grossly misleading” to report that
they had not responded to requests for comment, as the email that was sent to
them seeking comment did not contain specific details of the alleged tax
avoidance scheme. They also said that – while the article included a statement
that had allegedly been made by their lawyers – no one acting on their behalf
had made any such statement.
10. With
regard to the online version of the article, the complainants said that the
statement from the named individual was entirely false, and they had not acted
in the manner alleged. They also said that no documents had been filed with a
court that said that the complainants “introduce[d] wealthy individuals to
[named company] in order that they might buy financial services offered by
these business” or that “in consequence of these introductions and the business
that resulted from commission became payable.”
11. The
complainants requested: the deletion of the online version of the article; the
publication of a retraction and an apology; and an undertaking not to repeat
the “false allegations” made in the article in the future.
12. The
publication said that legal documents provided to it included allegations that
two companies, of which Mr Logan was director of, received £314,418.98 and
£175,736.37 respectively from the company named in the article. It said that a
further £175,736.37 was paid to a company in which Mr Logan held significant
control over, and where Mrs Logan held the role of company secretary. It also
said that it had been previously reported that the complainants had attended
parties to promote tax-avoidance products.
13. However,
it accepted that the print headline – “Tax
scheme firm paid £500,000 to Gabby Logan” – could have been ”better expressed”.
Notwithstanding this, it said that companies which had links to the
complainants had received funds from another company which was “notorious for
devising and selling tax avoidance products to customers”. It also said that it
had contacted the complainants for their response to this allegation, and they
had elected not to respond. It had therefore taken care over the accuracy of
this information, and had no way of knowing – prior to publication – that the
complainants disputed this position.
14. The
publication also said that the complainants would have been aware of the legal
proceedings referenced in the article – as Mr Logan had signed an amended
defence to the allegations against him in May 2021. It said that this amended
defence accepted that the named company had paid commission to Mr Logan and
that he had “attended functions and other events for the purpose of
entertaining customers and potential customers”.
15. The
publication said that the named company had been dissolved in 2017, according
to Companies House website. It had gone into administration in 2014, but this
was not the same as going “bust” – a company in administration could still be
“rescued” and go on to be a viable business.
16. The
publication accepted that the hearing date reported in the article was
inaccurate. It then said that it had approached one of the complainants for
their comment prior to the article’s publication, and that the approach for
comment made clear that the approach was being made in relation to allegations
against the “tax avoidance” company.
17. Turning
to the online version of the article, the publication said that – if the
complainants considered that the statement from the named individual was
incorrect – they should contact him; they were entitled to publish his
allegations and doing so did not render the article inaccurate.
18. While
the newspaper did not consider that the article included “substantial”
inaccuracies, it removed the online version of the article and agreed not to
repeat the article’s allegations in future coverage.
19. The
complainants said that the publication had inaccurately linked the fact that
the named company sold financial products to clients which included tax
avoidance schemes, with the fact that they – at times – received commission
from the company. It said that the company in question offered a wide range of
financial services, including Pension Reviews, CIC and Life Insurance advice,
mortgages and estate planning. It did not follow that commission paid to the
complainants from the company demonstrated that they had been paid for
introducing potential clients to tax-avoidance schemes, where the company in
question offered a wide range of financial advice and services. They said that
this would have been clear had the publication undertaken “basic research”
prior to publication into the company’s work. The complainants also said that
Mrs Logan had not received any money at all – either directly or indirectly –
from the company, as no payments had been made to companies associated with
her.
20. The
complainants accepted that Mr Logan had attended events as described in the
article – but denied in stringent terms that he attended for the purposes of
advertising tax avoidance schemes.
21. The
publication then proposed to publish the following correction in print – as
part of its usual corrections & clarifications column on page 2 of the
newspaper - and online as a standalone correction:
“An
article on February 28 said that Gabby and Kenny Logan had received £500,000 to
promote tax-avoidance schemes to their celebrity friends. In fact, they
promoted legitimate business services, rather than tax avoidance schemes. In
addition, they did not ‘disguise’ any income from this promotion in order to
avoid paying tax, as we reported. We apologise for the errors, and are happy to
set the record straight”.
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.
Mediated
Outcome
22. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
23. During
IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to publish the following
correction in print, online, and on its Twitter page:
“An
article on February 28 said that Gabby and Kenny Logan had received £500,000 to
promote tax-avoidance schemes to their celebrity friends. In fact, Gabby
played no part in the business and earned no income from it. Kenny’s role was
solely to introduce clients to companies who promoted legitimate business
services rather than tax avoidance schemes. In addition, they did not
‘disguise’ any income from this activity in order to avoid paying
tax, as we reported. We apologise for the errors, and are happy to set the
record straight.”
24. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to their satisfaction.
25. As
the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make
a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 22/03/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/05/2023
Back to ruling listing