00554-24 Mallon v Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. Christian Mallon complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The professional victim”, published on 3 February 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page 26 – reported on the complainant’s disability complaints against various organisations where he had applied to work. It reported he had “launched more than 100 complaints of disability discrimination” and had “been accused of making a ‘career’ out of employment tribunals.” It said the complainant, “who has been out of full-time employment since 2019, has applied for more than 4,600 jobs in locations from London to Aberdeen, with employers including Honda and the National Crime Agency. He tells firms that his autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyspraxia mean he struggles to fill in online forms, so he needs to make his application by phone – and he requests interview questions in advance.” It explained that “[i]f they refuse or delay, he launches a disability discrimination claim, arguing that ‘reasonable adjustments’ were not made for him – even if he had little hope of getting the job”.

3. The article stated that “sometimes Mr Mallon – who boasts of having a PhD in chemical engineering and a Master of Business Administration (MBA) qualification – has 20 claims on the go at once. He appears to have been paid more than £35,000 in out-of-court settlements, despite winning only a single case, which earned him £2,700.” The article also said that “[e]mployers have accused him of being a ‘vexatious’ serial litigant. Firms spend days preparing for and attending hearings, costing them hundreds of thousands of pounds”. It reported: “Last night Mr Mallon, who shares a detached house with his wife and son in Cannock, Staffordshire, while renting out two flats in Scotland and a house in his native Northern Ireland, told the Daily Mail: ‘I don’t want court cases, I want to work – but the problem is that people don’t make reasonable adjustments. The last job I had paid £50,000 a year, but now I am not being given a chance. What else am I supposed to do?’”

4. The article also said that “[o]ne of the 30 short-term jobs he actually secured was a £65,000-a year role at engineering firm [named organisation] in Birmingham. He was dismissed after nine months because of ‘unsatisfactory’ performance, but applied for another position there in 2018. This led to his only successful case, out of more than 100. He claimed he was unable to create his own password for the online application because he struggled to include a ‘special character’, such as an exclamation mark. The tribunal heard: ‘For him, this was a stressful and onerous requirement.’ [Named organisation] said it was unnecessary to help him apply orally, as his wife could have aided him in creating a password, and pointed out that the firm previously found his work unsatisfactory.”

5. The article went on to report that “East London Employment Judge [named individual] in 2022 ruled [named organisation] should have let him apply orally, and awarded him £2,000 for hurt feelings plus £700 interest. In the rest of the 57 employment judgments available for Mr Mallon, his quests for compensation failed. The tribunals are often over roles ‘where he has no relevant experience’”.

6. The article stated: “He was called out most severely over his claim against [named organisation], ending in November 2023, and ordered to pay £18,000 towards the firm’s costs. Employment Judge [named individual] told the Southampton tribunal that the ‘purpose of [Mr Mallon] making 4,643 job applications’ was to create opportunities to seek settlements or bring claims, adding: ‘This is effectively now his chosen career.’”

7. The article also appeared online in substantially the same form under the headline “Exclusive: Meet the professional victim who's made £35,000 from more than 100 disability complaints accused of 'making a career out of tribunals'”. This version of the article was published on 2 February 2024.

8. The complainant said the article had breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) as the headline had referred to him as “the professional victim”. The complainant believed this to be a pejorative reference to his disability. He said he had ADHD, autism and dyspraxia, and was genuinely entitled to request reasonable adjustments in the job application process; this did not make him a “professional victim”. The complainant also said the article had insinuated he was abusing the system, and that the language adopted a mocking, derogatory tone that ostracised him based on his conditions.

9. The complainant said the articles failed to acknowledge the significant financial and emotional toll the litigation process had taken on him as a disabled individual simply trying to find work. The complainant said his medical conditions were listed very clearly in the article; this shed a negative light on these conditions, which would make it embarrassing for other neurodiverse people to disclose their conditions.

10. The complainant produced a document which confirmed his diagnosis of ADHD, ASD and dyspraxia. The complainant also provided published guidance of reasonable adjustments for dyspraxic employees and individuals.

11. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 1 for several reasons. First, he said the article had omitted the fact that requesting to make job applications by phone and asking for interview questions in advance was an essential criteria for an oral application. He also said the article had reported that he had been paid more than £35,000 in out-of-court settlements; however, it did not report that this was over the course of about seven years. He also said the article did not report that he was awarded £2,700 compensation when he won a previous case. He further said the article had not reported that employment tribunals were free and that the firms had chosen to spend money on lawyers that he could not afford. He also said the article did not report that he had also worked contract jobs and that his job description changed when he worked for one of the organisations named in the article. He further said that the article did not report that he had appealed the claim outcome as his victim statement was not read or was missed in the Judge’s conclusions.

12. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported that he had paid £18,000 towards the legal costs of one of the organisations named in the article. He said he had asked for reconsideration of this and put in an appeal with a professional autism expert as he considered the verbal evidence was ignored and therefore never paid this amount.

13. The complainant also said the article did not report the number of final hearings he had, or that out of the 57 employment judgments many were withdrawn; and that he never received legal support in employment tribunals but that he had received help from legal charities. He said the article had reported that he “live[d] in Cannock, Staffordshire, in a detached house with his wife and son, while renting out two flats in Scotland and a house in his native Northern Ireland” but did not report that his house was mortgaged, that one of his flats in Scotland had been empty for about five months, and that the house in Northern Ireland was his mother’s which was also mortgaged.

14. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to refer to his “wife” as he was not married to his partner.

15. The complainant next said the article was inaccurate to report that he had “launched more than 100 complaints of disability discrimination”, as the complaints related to the job application processes.

16. In addition, the complainant said the article inaccurately reported that he had “been accused of making a ‘career’ out of employment tribunals”, as he had had 30 jobs before finding out about his medical conditions.

17. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported that he had “been out of full-time employment since 2019” as he had applied for lots of jobs since 2019. He also said the article inaccurately reported that he had “applied for more than 4,600 jobs in locations from London to Aberdeen”, as he applied for 2,000 jobs a year and had not applied for jobs in Aberdeen for over ten years.

18. In addition to this, the complainant said the article inaccurately reported that he applied to the National Crime Agency, as he had applied to a government department.

19. The complainant said that the article inaccurately said he “claim[ed] to have autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and dyspraxia”. He said this was not a claim; he had been diagnosed.

20. The complainant also said the article inaccurately stated that “he launche[d] a disability discrimination claim, arguing that ‘reasonable adjustments’ were not made for him – even if he had little hope of getting the job”, as he had only begun legal proceedings once he had been rejected from a role via email.

21. He said the article inaccurately reported that he had 20 simultaneous active claims at times; he estimated that he had five active claims currently.

22. He also said the article inaccurately reported that he expressed a desire to work; he said that he needed to work.

23. The complainant said the article inaccurately reported that: “Tribunals often involved roles where he had no relevant experience”. He said this was inaccurate as he had a lot of experience but in some cases, he was not a close enough match for the job as the adverts were not clear about the essential role requirements, and he had difficulty processing written text due to his conditions.

24. The complainant said the article inaccurately reported that, “employment Judge [named individual] stated that the purpose of Mallon making 4,643 job applications was to create opportunities to seek settlements or bring claims, effectively making it his chosen career”, as he considered it was actually to secure work and noted that he had not refused any interviews or job offers.

25. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 12 – it said that the reference under complaint did not refer to the complainant’s disability, but rather his decision to sue many companies for alleged discrimination. The publication said being litigious was not a feature of the complainant’s disability and that organisations were entitled to express their views on the discrimination cases.

26. The publication said there were no grounds either in the medical reports the complainant had provided nor the multiple public judgements to suggest his meritless litigation was a feature of his disabilities. It said, therefore, that criticism of his behaviour in this regard did not engage Clause 12. The publication said the article had simply repeated or summarised the findings of several judges who were commenting on his legal cases, and that the judges were not making pejorative or prejudicial references to his disability. The publication provided excerpts from various rulings which included the following excerpts:

· “In previous litigation the [complainant] accepted that Employment Judges have noted: (a) the [complainant] early on would threaten litigation if his demands were not met; (b) a ‘strong suspicion’ the [complainant] was using the application process in the hope of making money; (c) ‘the long sequence of claims brought and then withdrawn’ (d) the [complainant] has been subject to numerous costs awards arising from his applications.”

· “We further accept that the [complainant’s] claim is misconceived as counsel for the respondent submits. We have found that the [complainant] has developed a system of applying for roles by submitting his CV without spending any time assessing whether he meets the requirements of the role, with the expressed requirement that on every occasion, no matter how weak his application for a role taken at its highest could be, the employer or agency should offer him the opportunity to make an oral application after sending him what he terms to be the ‘essential requirements’ of the role. If this is not done, he responds with the threat of litigation and issues a claim unless settlement is reached via ACAS. This is the process the claimant has adopted in this case. The claimant has confirmed under cross-examination that he has never paid a deposit order.”

· “We have found that this claim was not made in good faith and was made without any cogent evidence to support the [complainant’s] contention that he had been discriminated against, and we are therefore satisfied that it was one which had no reasonable prospects of success.”

· “The Tribunal is also satisfied that the [complainant] acted vexatiously and unreasonably both in applying for the role in the first place when he had no relevant experience and in bringing a claim for disability discrimination as part of an overall campaign or process of litigating but with no intention of assessing the genuine merits of this particular claim. This conclusion is based on the [complainant’s] evidence as recorded in the original liability judgment. In the judgment of the Tribunal, the purpose of making 4643, job applications, of which this was one, was not because the claimant genuinely believed he was able to undertake each of those roles, including the role which is the subject matter of this claim, but to provide an opportunity to seek a settlement or to bring an employment tribunal claim whether or not there was any merit in such claim. This is effectively now the claimant’s chosen career. The liability judgment and the Tribunal’s judgment today is that the claim was ‘misconceived’ and ‘not made in good faith’”.

27. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. In regard to the information the complainant highlighted which was not included in the article, it did not consider this made the article’s content inaccurate or misleading. It said the article accurately reported on the number of complaints of disability discrimination he had made and the outcome of these complaints.

28. The publication did not accept that the claim the complainant had “launched more than 100 complaints of disability discrimination” was inaccurate. It said the article made clear the cases were in relation to discrimination in the job application process.

29. In regard to the claim that the complainant had been accused of making a ‘career’ out of employment tribunals, the publication said that the article did not say that he did not have jobs before the tribunals and explained that the article made clear he was accused of this behaviour.

30. In response to the claim that the complainant had “been out of full-time employment since 2019” and “applied for more than 4,600 jobs in locations from London to Aberdeen”, the publication noted that the complainant did not dispute that he had been out of full-time employment since 2019 or that he had applied for jobs in Aberdeen in the past. The publication said the article did not say he applied for a certain number of jobs per year, but that he had applied for more than 4,600 jobs.

31. Turning to the article’s claim that the complainant applied for the National Crime Agency, the publication noted this organisation was a government agency and therefore it said the article was not inaccurate.

32. In regard to the articles claim the complainant “claims to have autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and dyspraxia”, the publication said it was accurate to report that he had these conditions, and the article did not suggest that this claim or diagnosis was untrue.

33. The publication did not accept the claim “he launches a disability discrimination claim, arguing that ‘reasonable adjustments’ were not made for him – even if he had little hope of getting the job” was inaccurate, as he did launch disability discrimination claims when the organisation rejected him by email.

34. In regard to the article’s claim that the complainant “sometimes […] has 20 claims on the go”, the publication pointed out the complainant did not dispute at one time he did have 20 active claims.

35. The publication did not accept that the claim “[tt]ribunals often involved roles where he had no relevant experience” was inaccurate. It said that it was not in dispute that he did not have the right experience for some jobs he applied for.

36. The publication also did not accept the employment judge’s quotation was inaccurate. It said it appeared the complainant disagreed with the judge, but he did not dispute that the judge had said what the article reported.

37. In response to the publication’s position on Clause 12, the complainant said the article’s reference to “professional victim” was not a critique of his legal actions and said that the publication's claim that this phrase did not refer to his disabilities was untenable. He said his pursuit of reasonable adjustments and legal recourse was inextricably linked to his conditions which created a unique challenges and barriers in the workplace. He said by characterising these legitimate efforts as a calculated "career" or a scheme to exploit the system, the article perpetuated harmful misconceptions and would discourage individuals with disabilities from seeking accommodations and redress. He also said the article disregarded the well-documented systemic barriers and challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in navigating complex legal systems. Rather than acknowledging these issues and advocating for positive change, the complainant said the article adopted a dismissive and condescending tone, effectively trivialising the legitimate concerns and experiences of the disabled community.

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 12 (Discrimination)

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Findings of the Committee

38. The Committee first considered the complainant’s Clause 12 complaint. The headline had referred to the complainant as “the professional victim” which he said referred to his disability in a pejorative way. In considering whether this constituted a pejorative or prejudicial reference to the complainant’s disability, the Committee was mindful of the context of the article: it described the multiple disability discrimination claims the complainant had pursued against various organisations where he had applied to work. The article reported that he had won one case out of 57 tribunal claims, which suggested many of his cases were not successful. The article went on to explain employers “have accused him of being a ‘vexatious’ serial litigant” and further quoted an Employment Judge, who reportedly said: “the ‘purpose of [Mr Mallon] making 4,643 job applications’ was to create opportunities to seek settlements or bring claims, adding: ‘This is effectively now his chosen career.’” As such, the Committee considered that the reference to “professional victim” was a reference to the high number of disability claims the complainant had pursued and the judge’s comments, and was not a pejorative reference to his disability. There was no breach of Clause 12 on this point.

39. The Committee also considered whether the article had suggested the complainant was abusing the system in breach of Clause 12. The Committee noted that the article did not state the complainant was not entitled to reasonable adjustments during the job application process and made clear that the complainant had several medical conditions. Notwithstanding this, the publication was entitled to comment on the merits of the complainant’s legal action – the fact that the complainant’s disability was a key element of this legal action did not mean that any criticism constituted a pejorative or prejudicial reference to his disabilities. There was no breach of Clause 12 on this point.

40. The complainant also said the articles failed to acknowledge the significant financial and emotional toll the litigation process had taken on him as a disabled individual trying to find work. The Committee noted that this concern did not relate to a pejorative, prejudicial or irrelevant reference to the complainant’s protected characteristics, and therefore there was no breach of Clause 12.

41. The Committee next considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 1. The complainant provided further context and additional information which he believed was relevant to the article under complaint. He said this information had been omitted from the article and therefore made it inaccurate. The Committee reviewed the claims within the article carefully, alongside the additional information the complainant had provided. However, it did not consider the omission of the information provided by the complainant rendered the article inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. It noted it would not be possible to include all relevant and contextual information in an article and newspapers are entitled to select which material they publish provided they do not breach the Code. For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

42. The Committee also noted that the complainant had said the article did not report that he was awarded £2,700 compensation when he won a previous case. However, the article reported that the complainant had won “only a single case, which earned him £2,700”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

43. The Committee appreciated the complainant was not married to his partner, however it did not consider referring to her as his “wife” was significantly inaccurate, in the context of an article which focused on his various legal claims where it was accepted they were partners. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

44. The Committee then considered whether it was inaccurate to report that the complainant was “ordered to pay £18,000 towards the firm’s costs.” It noted that the complainant said he had appealed this and had not paid this amount. However, the complainant did not dispute he had been ordered to pay this amount, which was what the article reported. For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 1.

45. The complainant said the article inaccurately reported that he had “launched more than 100 complaints of disability discrimination”, as his complaints related to the job application process. The Committee did not consider this inaccurate in circumstances where the article had made clear the disability discrimination cases were made in response to the complainant’s experience of the job application process at various organisations: “He tells firms that his autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyspraxia mean he struggles to fill in online forms, so he needs to make his application by phone – and he requests interview questions in advance. If they refuse or delay, he launches a disability discrimination claim, arguing that ‘reasonable adjustments’ were not made for him – even if he had little hope of getting the job.” For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

46. In addition, the complainant said the article inaccurately reported that he had “been accused of making a ‘career’ out of employment tribunals”, as he had 30 jobs before the tribunals. The Committee noted that the article had set out what the employment judge has said in court: the “‘purpose of [Mr Mallon] making 4,643 job applications’” and “’This is effectively now his chosen career’”. Given the complainant had been accused of effectively making a career out of the employment tribunals by a judge, and the complainant did not appear to dispute the judge had said this, the Committee did not consider this to be inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1.

47. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate to report that he had “been out of full-time employment since 2019” as he said he was searching for a job; and that it was inaccurate to report he had “applied for more than 4,600 jobs in locations from London to Aberdeen”, as he applied for 2,000 jobs a year and had not applied for jobs in Aberdeen for over ten years. The Committee noted that, while the article had claimed the complainant was unemployed – which he did not appear to dispute – it made clear he was applying for jobs, and that he had applied for “more than 4,600 jobs”. Further, while the complainant had not applied for a job in Aberdeen for over ten years, he also did not appear to dispute he had once applied for jobs in the city. The Committee also noted that the article did not specify how many jobs the complainant applied for a year and therefore there was no inaccurate figure for this time period. For these reasons, there was no breach of Clause 1.

48. The complainant said the article inaccurately reported that he applied to the National Crime Agency, as he had applied for a role at a government department. The Committee noted that the National Crime Agency is a government agency. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1.

49. The complainant said that the article inaccurately said he “claim[ed] to have autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and dyspraxia”. The Committee noted that the complainant did have autism, ADH and dyspraxia and that the newspaper was not able to independently verify his diagnoses prior to publication. In such circumstances, it did not consider that the article was inaccurate in how it reported on the complainant’s diagnoses, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

50. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate to state that “he launche[d] a disability discrimination claim, arguing that ‘reasonable adjustments’ were not made for him – even if he had little hope of getting the job”, as this only occurred when the job rejected him by email. Where the complainant did not appear to dispute he launched disability discrimination claims against organisations on the basis that the appropriate reasonable adjustments had not been made for him, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

51. The complainant said the article inaccurately reported he had 20 simultaneous active claims at times, as he currently had five. The Committee appreciate that at the time of complaint, the complainant had five active claims. However it noted that the article made clear he “sometimes” has 20 simultaneous claims. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

52. He also said the article inaccurately reported that he expressed a desire to work, but did not report that he also expressed a ‘need’ to work. The Committee noted that the article quoted him: “I don’t want court cases, I want to work – but the problem is that people don’t make reasonable adjustments”. Where the article had simply quoted the complainant, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate for the article to omit he had a “need” to work, where the complainant did not appear to dispute the accuracy of the quotation. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

53. The complainant said the article reported that the “[t]ribunals often involved roles where he had no relevant experience”. In this instance, the Committee noted that the complainant accepted in some cases, he was not a close enough match for the role – and therefore it was not inaccurate to state, he had no “relevant experience”. Further, the article had quoted an employment judge who said the tribunals are often over roles “’where he has no relevant experience’”, making clear the basis for this claim. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

54. The complainant said the article inaccurately reported that the employment judge stated that “the purpose of Mallon making 4,643 job applications was to create opportunities to seek settlements or bring claims, effectively making it his chosen career”. The Committee noted that the complainant did not appear to dispute that the judge had said this; rather, he appeared to be in disagreement what the judge said. Newspapers are not responsible for the accuracy of what is heard during legal proceedings and tribunals. Rather, they are responsible for accurately reporting what is heard during such proceedings. The complainant did not dispute that the judge had made these comments, and therefore the Committee was satisfied there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

55. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

56. N/A

Date complaint received: 03/02/3034

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/07/2024

Independent Complaints Reviewer

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