01581-24 Mallon v The Mail on Sunday

Summary of Complaint

1. Christian Mallon complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Mail on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The man with a very lucrative career in...Victimhood”, published on 11 February 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on a double-page spread across pages 36 and 37 – reported on the complainant’s disability complaints against various organisations he had applied to work for. The article opened with:

“To those who have encountered Christian Mallon on the jobs market, he is a man of two distinctly different guises. On the one hand there is Dr Christian Mallon, whose carefully composed CV documents an impressive list of qualifications […] But then there is the other side to Christian Mallon, one that has come to strike terror into the hearts of small business owners across the UK. This Christian Mallon cuts an altogether more shambolic figure when he appears before employment tribunals, as he has several times in recent years after lodging a dizzying string of claims of disability discrimination against businesses the length and breadth of the country.”

3. The article reported the complainant, “who has been out of full-time employment since 2019, seems to have alighted on a new career: that of the professional victim, a role that appears to have netted him at least £35,000 in dividends, a figure he disputes.” The article went on to report: “As an employment tribunal judge observed last month, the purpose of making 4,643 job applications […] was ‘not because the claimant genuinely believed he was able to undertake each of those roles, including the role which is the subject 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.’”

4. The article then asked:

 “So what does this career entail? It all centres around disability discrimination legislation, which requires that job applicants are afforded ‘reasonable adjustments’ where needed. Dr Mallon, 49, who lives in a £300,000 redbrick detached home […], has a number of diagnoses to his name. In 2014, he was diagnosed with dyspraxia – a condition which he says makes it difficult for him (among other things) to fill in online forms; then in 2021 he was diagnosed with autism and more recently with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). So the 6ft 5in Northern Irishman’s modus operandi appears to work something like this. He fires off job applications using a ‘one-click ’system, which sends his CV far and wide, but without tailoring it to any one job advertised. On his CV, he informs firms that his disabilities mean that he needs to make his application by phone, and he requests interview questions in advance.”

5. The article also said that, “when Dr Mallon’s numerous job applications are rejected – usually because he lacks the appropriate skills or experience – he is in the habit of issuing replies such as this one from January, 2021: ‘can i ask why you did not follow my reasonable adjustments listed on my cv as i cannot help my medical condition... equality act has been in place for 11 years and doc attached what your duty is under law’[sic].”

6. The article also reported that the complainant “was ordered by an employment tribunal in Southampton to pay £18,000 towards the costs of [named organisation] […]. It had rejected his application (one of a string made to the firm) for a role as technical manager in the energy sector because he did not meet the requirements of the job. Dr Mallon had been so unhappy that within six minutes of receiving the response, he was tapping out his reply”.

7. The article also said:

“A reserved judgment from an earlier stage of the [named organisation] case notes that the claimant has ‘commenced over 100 claims in tribunals’. The Mail has found 57 cases lodged on the Employment Tribunals services website, which only reaches back as far as 2017. The first documented claim seen by the Mail relates to a job application made in 2016. The job in question? Deputy Secretary to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs [DEFRA], based in Belfast – a role in which the successful applicant would act as chief adviser to the Minister, overseeing a staff of 900 and a budget of ‘approximately £335million’. The post required specific criteria, notably professional qualifications and expertise in agriculture and the agri-food industry. Dr Mallon, who did once work in a takeaway, admitted at the tribunal he did not meet the criteria although insisted he still had a 50/50 chance of getting the job as he ‘had the understanding but not the experience’.

In evidence, he then proceeded to insist he could not click an activation link within an email sent by the ministry’s HR team to assist him and was similarly confounded by opening attachments. On this occasion Dr Mallon’s claim extended to discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, too, based on little more than the fact that he was Roman Catholic and the HR executive was, apparently, Protestant. His claims failed on both counts.”

8. The article reported: “For those on the receiving end of Dr Mallon’s scattergun enterprise, it’s an exhausting, not to mention potentially expensive, encounter. The article reported an employee of an international business was looking for a researcher with significant graphene experience to help him develop his small start-up when he advertised in 2021 – something Dr Mallon did not have. Yet Dr Mallon deployed his usual response to his application being rejected.”. The article then reported that, “in order to lodge a tribunal claim, claimants must first contact Acas (The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service), to see if the problem cannot be resolved out of court”.

9. The article also said that the complainant “has two properties he rents out in Scotland and a house in his native Northern Ireland, plus his own business selling ‘nano technology’ products for motor vehicles (which he calls his ‘hobby job’)” and “has netted £35,000 from making disability complaints, .It’s unclear how that figure has been reached or if it includes settlements made before any claim is even lodged.”

The article quoted a chairman of a business, who reportedly said: “He doesn’t want to go to tribunal and that is evident by the number of times he has withdrawn cases. I believe it’s all about emotional blackmail.” The article said that in 2019, the chairman decided to “turn the tables” on the complainant for costs and won £2,000. It said “[w]hat he really feels about Dr Mallon, he is too circumspect to say – he restricts himself to ‘scruffy’ and ‘probably quite wealthy’. But having spent his life working in business he says this: ‘We have laws in this country to protect people. I used to work in travel and we used to fight all of the complaints because people make false complaints. The reality is companies fight everything because of people like him, who are abusing the system.’ But, as he points out, where does that leave the genuine victims of discrimination of all kinds whose claims are sitting in an overloaded system, waiting to be heard?’”.

10. The article then said that the complainant:

 “insists he doesn’t want to go to court. ‘If you had done four and a half degrees and worked in 30 jobs, wouldn’t you want to work?’ Dr Mallon tells the Mail, in a long conversation sitting in one of three cars on his driveway. ‘I thought, I am 49 with 18 years left to work. If I don’t do anything then I never get to work. If I do something, I am more likely to get work in the future,’ he says. As for being ‘vexatious’, he insists: ‘That is their perception. I would say I am applying for jobs and disclosing my conditions and asking for reasonable adjustments. I need a job. I have a family, a mortgage and child. I need reasonable adjustments and people are not making them. Do you put your hand in the air and tell your story or do you let it go?’”

11. The article also appeared online in substantially the same form under the headline, “The man with a very lucrative career in...victimhood. So is he proof our compensation culture is out of control? Christian Mallon applied for thousands of jobs he didn't believe he could do... then sued firms for allegedly ignoring his ADHD and autism”.

12. The complainant said the article breached Clause 12 as it claimed he was “abusing the system”, had “two distinctly different guises”, and had “alighted on a new career: that of the professional victim”. The complainant believed these to be pejorative references to his disability. He said he had ADHD, autism and dyspraxia, and was genuinely entitled to request reasonable adjustments in the job application process. The complainant also said the article had stated he was abusing the system, and that the language adopted a mocking, derogatory tone that ostracised him based on his conditions.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 1 for several reasons. First, he said the article had omitted to say the number of job applications he had made –five job applications a day, or 2,000 job applications per year – was twice the average and that the maximum number of jobs posted on the job website he used per day was 80. He also said the article did not report he studied biomedical sciences but did not finish his degree, or that he had published papers on carbon deposition in fuel cells and that he had been involved in graphene from his “hobby business” for nearly three years.

16. He also said that Clause 1 had been breached because the article had not reported he was not sent the essential job criteria during an application for a job at one of the named organisations, despite the fact that he asked for this as a reasonable adjustment.

17. He then said that the article did not report that he rented out one of the properties he owner, and that another one was currently empty. He said he owned his mother’s old house and that he paid an interest-only mortgage. He also said the article did not report that he received a small salary for his hobby that took less than a few hours a week and that he ran this business alongside a full-time job between 2016-2019 without taking a salary. He said the article reported that he had a conversation in “one of three cars on his driveway” but said it did not report that one car was his partner’s and was worth £850; that his car was worth £500; and that the other car was worth £150 and was broken and had not been on the road for four years.

18. The complainant said that the article did not report that he did want to work and that if organisations did not follow his reasonable adjustments, then he felt he had no choice but to pursue legal action.

19. He said that the article reported that someone had “won £2,000” in a legal claim against him, but did not report he requested a written judgment as he knew he would struggle to put his thoughts on paper; and that he tried to appeal, though the appeal was denied.

20. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported that he “proceeded to insist he could not click an activation link within an email sent by the ministry’s HR team to assist him and was similarly confounded by opening attachments”. He said the HR team in question did not write down what they had discussed on the phone and that the phone call was 40 minutes in length, but that he had no evidence to prove this as he since changed phones.

21. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 1 as it reported he was a “man of two distinctly different guises: On the one hand there is Dr Christian Mallon, whose carefully composed CV documents an impressive list of qualifications ”. He said this was inaccurate as there was only one Christian Mallon and one version of his CV that work coaches helped him write.

22. He also said the article inaccurately reported that he had “lodg[ed] a dizzying string of claims of disability discrimination against businesses the length and breadth of the country” as he applied for jobs all over England, Scotland and Wales; and could work away during the week and return home on the weekend.

23. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate to report he had “alighted on a new career: that of a professional victim, a role that appears to have netted him at least £35,000 in dividends, a figure he disputes”, as he said he had received money from successful legal claims but these were not “dividends”. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 1 because it reported that “[i]t was unclear how that figure has been reached or if it includes settlements made before any claim is even lodged”, as he was unsure what figure the sentence was referring to.

24. In addition, the complainant said the article inaccurately referred to a named individual as a chairman of a “large recruitment firm”. He said there were four people listed on the company website and therefore it was inaccurate to describe it as “large”.

25. The complainant then said the article breached Clause 1 by quoting a judge who said “the purpose of making 4,643 job applications … was ‘not because the claimant genuinely believed he was able to undertake each of those roles, including the role which is the subject 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.’” He said this was, the judge’s opinion, and that the judge had ignored medical evidence.

26. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that the a job he applied for AT DEFRA “required specific criteria, notably professional qualifications and expertise in agriculture and the agri-food industry”, as agricultural experience was not listed as essential criteria.

27. The complainant said the article was inaccurate to report that, “for those on the receiving end of Dr Mallon’s scattergun enterprise, it’s an exhausting, not to mention potentially expensive, encounter”, as he said it was free to read his CV and have a phone conversation if he met the essential criteria.

28. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report “the 6ft 5in Northern Irishman’s modus operandi appears to work something like this. He fires off job applications using a ‘one-click’ system, which sends his CV far and wide, but without tailoring it to any one job advertised”, as he is 6’6; does not speak Latin; now applied for role with a CV and cover letter – though he accepted that he did used to apply using one-click systems.

29. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that, on his CV, he informed firms that his disabilities meant that he needed to make his application by phone, and he had previously requested interview questions in advance. He said that, on his CV, he requested to make a verbal job application and for the essential criteria to be sent by email.

30. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that he had said to an employer the “[E]quality [A]ct has been in place for 11 years”, as it has been in place for 14 years.

31. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that that an organisation rejected his application “for a role as technical manager in the energy sector because he did not meet the requirements of the job”, as he believed he met the essential criteria.

32. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that a named individual had said: “The stress, you can’t put a price on that, the cost of being accused of something that clearly you have not done; it’s almost like the woke system has fallen over its own scale now to the point at where people like Christian can take advantage of big business”, as he rejected him by email and the complainant did not think he took advantage of him.

33. The complainant then said it was inaccurate to report that another named individual said: “He doesn’t want to go to tribunal and that is evident by the number of times he has withdrawn cases. I believe it’s all about emotional blackmail”, as he had been to the final hearings many times and because he closed lots of cases at the same time. He also said the article was inaccurate to report the individual had said he was “ “probably quite wealthy”, as he had not worked since 2019. In addition to this, he said it was inaccurate to report that the individual said: “The reality is companies fight everything because of people like him, who are abusing the system” as he “disclosed wrong”, listened to the court in London, and changed his CV. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to report that the individual said, “We have laws in this country to protect people. I used to work in travel and we used to fight all of the complaints because people make false complaints”, as he did not believe the court had found that he had made a false complaint.

34. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report “where does that leave the genuine victims of discrimination of all kinds whose claims are sitting in an overloaded system, waiting to be heard?”, as he was rejected from the role, and considered he should be free to highlight the mistakes of others as people with disabilities have the Equalities Act to protect them from discrimination.

35. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that he said, “[d]o you put your hand in the air and tell your story or do you let it go?", as he did not recall saying this. The complainant also said the article inaccurately report that, “it all centres around disability discrimination legislation, which requires that job applicants are afforded ‘reasonable adjustments’ where needed”, because he put his medical conditions on his CV.

36. He also said the article inaccurately reported he “was diagnosed with dyspraxia – a condition which he says makes it difficult for him (among other things) to fill in online forms; then in 2021 he was diagnosed with autism and more recently with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)”. He said he was not alone with his problems, and received assistance to do task in his day-to-day life. and accessed various support when using services such as the bank. He also said he attended video links which helped.

37. He said it was inaccurate to report “Dr Mallon’s numerous job applications are rejected… usually because he lacks the appropriate skills or experience”. He said he had no way of knowing whether he had the right experience if organisations did not speak to him or send him the essential criteria.

38. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report “Dr Mallon had been so unhappy that within six minutes of receiving the response [rejecting him from a job role], he was tapping out his reply”. He said the rejection upset him because he is neurodiverse.

39. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that the publication had “found 57 cases lodged on the Employment Tribunals services website, which only reaches back as far as 2017. The first documented claim seen by the Mail relates to a job application made in 2016”. He said he was diagnosed a few years before but struggled to previously disclose his conditions correctly.

40. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that “a claim made by Dr Mallon was eventually struck out but not before an exhaustive litigation process”, because he was unable to recall why it was struck off.

41. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that “in order to lodge a tribunal claim, claimants must first contact Acas (The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service), to see if the problem cannot be resolved out of court”. He said he could not recall which issue ACAS was trying to solve as his contact with them occurred many years ago.

42. The complainant said it was inaccurate to an individual as having reportedly said “couldn’t understand why [the complainant] acted that way”. He said neurodiverse people could be understood.

43. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Turning first to Clause 12, it said that the references 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.

44. 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. In regard to the claim that the complainant “seems to have alighted on a new career: that of the professional victim”, the publication provided excerpts from various rulings to support its position:

· “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’”.

45. In regard to the quote from the chairman of a recruitment firm who reportedly said: “The reality is companies fight everything because of people like him, who are abusing the system”, the publication said it was clear from the context of the article that “abusing the system” referred to the complainant making meritless claims and pursuing aggressive litigation – a view which the publication said had been endorsed by the courts repeatedly.

46. The publication said that the reference to “a man of two distinctly different guises” was simply referring to the fact that prospective employers would take the complainant’s application at face value and in good faith, and would then be surprised when the complainant decided to sue them, often within minutes of being rejected. Furthermore, it said that the complainant’s disability could not be described as a “guise” as the entire premise of his legal action rested on him having made his disability explicit during the job applications.

47. The newspaper next turned to the complaints made under Clause 1. In regard to the omission of the points the complainant had raised, it said 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.

48. Regarding the “two distinctly different guises”, the publication said this term was a figure of speech and was not a statement of fact that the complainant was two different people.

49. In response to the claim that the complainant “lodg[ed] a dizzying string of claims of disability discrimination against businesses the length and breadth of the country”, the publication said this was not inaccurate: the complainant accepted he had applied for jobs and made legal claims in a variety of locations.

50. The publication said the complainant did not dispute he had received £35,000 as a result of his claims and therefore the term “dividends” was not significantly inaccurate. It also said the article made clear it was referring to the figure of £35,000 when reporting that the complainant disputed the figure.

51. The publication said the reference to the “large recruitment firm” was not significantly inaccurate, as the term “large” was subjective. It also said it did not consider the size of the recruitment company to be a significant part of the article as a whole.

52. In response to the complainant’s position that he disagreed with what the judge had said, and other recorded quotations from court, the publication said this statement was reported as the judge’s view – “an employment tribunal judge observed last month”. It said newspapers are responsible for accurately reporting what is heard in court, and he did not appear to dispute that the judge had made the comments reported in the article. The publication said it was responsible for reporting what was heard by the court, and was not responsible for the accuracy for what was said in court.

53. In regard to the claim that organisations encountering the complainant could be a “potentially expensive, encounter”, the publication said the complainant was not in a position to know what cost companies would incur.

54. The publication said a one-inch difference in reporting the complainant’s height was not significantly inaccurate. It also noted that the complainant did not dispute he had previously applied to jobs with one-click.

55. In regard to the claim the complainant’s CV required application by phone, and he requested interview questions in advance, the publication said this was a summary of the process and did not consider it to be significantly inaccurate.

56. Regarding the alleged inaccuracy in the article’s reporting of the complainant’s comment that the “equality act has been in place for 11 years”, the publication said this was clearly distinguished as the complainant’s words and that this was what he had said.

57. In response to the complainant’s position that he met the essential criteria for a job application, the publication said the article was not inaccurate to report that the organisation did not think he met the criteria for the job.

58. In response to the complainant’s concerns that it was inaccurate to quote various individuals who had encountered him in the context of his legal claims. The publication said these quotes were distinguished as the individual’s opinions, and the article made clear it was their view. It said newspapers are allowed to report individual’s views, as long as they are clearly presented as such. It further said the reference to “false complaints” was referring to other people making such complaints, not the complainant.

59. Regarding the article’s reference to “the genuine victims of discrimination of all kinds whose claims are sitting in an overloaded system”, the publication said this was not suggesting the complainant was not disabled, but indicated that there were other victims of discrimination who were waiting in an overloaded system.

60. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that he said, “[d]o you put your hand in the air and tell your story or do you let it go?", as he did not recall saying this. The publication said where he did not dispute he had spoken to the newspaper and, where he was unable to confirm he did not say this, it was not inaccurate.

61. The publication said the complainant’s other points did not engage Clause 1.

62. In response to the publication’s position on Clause 12, the complainant said the article’s references were not a critique of his legal actions and that the publication's claim that these phrases 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

63. The Committee first considered the complainant’s Clause 12 complaint, arising from the article reporting comments from an individual who had said: “The reality is companies fight everything because of people like him, who are abusing the system.” The publication was entitled to publish the chairman’s view regarding the merits of the complainant’s legal action, and doing so did not represent a reference to the complainant’s disability. 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.

64. The Committee next considered the term “man of two distinctly different guises”. It noted that the article had set out the basis for this term by stating: “On the one hand there is Dr Christian Mallon, whose carefully composed CV documents an impressive list of qualifications, […] But then there is the other side to Christian Mallon, one that has come to strike terror into the hearts of small business owners across the UK. This Christian Mallon cuts an altogether more shambolic figure when he appears before employment tribunals, as he has several times in recent years after lodging a dizzying string of claims of disability discrimination against businesses the length and breadth of the country.” The article described how the complainant’s impressive CV may be appealing to business owners during the job application process, in contrast with his tendency to pursue disability discrimination claims. The article went on to explain that these claims were often meritless and could be expensive for the organisations. The Committee did not consider “two distinctly different guises” was a reference to his disability, but rather his impressive CV and his litigious behaviour. There was no breach of Clause 12 on this point.

65. The article stated that the complainant seemed “to have alighted on a new career: that of the professional victim”. 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 went on to say that employers had “accused him of being a ‘vexatious’ serial litigant’” and quoted a judge, who observed “the purpose of making 4,643 job applications, as recorded on a CV website used by Dr Mallon, was ‘not because the claimant genuinely believed he was able to undertake each of those roles, including the role which is the subject 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.’” As such, the Committee considered that the reference to “alight[ing] on a new career: that of the professional victim” was a reference to the high amount 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.

66. 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 that the terms of Clause 12 were not engaged by the point of complaint.

67. The Committee next considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 1. The complainant had provided further contextual 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.

68. Turning to the claim that the complainant was a “man of two distinctly different guises”, the Committee noted that the article did not state the complainant had two separate CVs or that he was two different people. It set out the basis for its characterisation of two difference guises such as the “carefully composed CV documents an impressive list of qualifications” in contrast with the “other side to Christian Mallon, one that has come to strike terror into the hearts of small business owners across the UK”. For this reason, the Committee did not consider this to be inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

69. In regard to the claim that the complainant “lodg[ed] a dizzying string of claims of disability discrimination against businesses the length and breadth of the country”, the Committee noted that where it was not in dispute the complainant had applied for thousands of jobs in locations including England, Scotland and Wales. For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

70. The Committee considered the term “£35,000 in dividends”, and whether this was inaccurate in the manner described by the complainant. As the article made clear this was the money the complainant had received, it was not significantly inaccurate to refer to the money as “dividends”; the article was not misleading as to the source of this money. There was no breach of Clause 1.

71. Turning to the complaint arising from the article’s description of a complaint as “large”, the Committee noted the complainant’s position that there were four employees listed and that therefore it was inaccurate to describe it as large. In this instance, the Committee did not consider this to be significantly inaccurate where this was a brief reference to the size of a company and this term may be interpreted in a range of ways – for instance, it could refer to the number of customers, or the company’s turnover. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

72. The complainant said the article inaccurately quoted a judge who commented on “the purpose of making 4,643 job applications”. The Committee noted that the complainant did not appear to dispute that the judge had made the comments reported in the article; rather, he appeared to disagree with 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.

73. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that a role he had applied for at DEFRA “required […] expertise in agriculture and the agri-food industry”, as he did not know that agricultural experience was necessary when he had applied for the role. T It did not follow that, simply because the complainant was unaware of the criteria, the article was inaccurate on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

74. In regard to the potential costs incurred by the organisations subject to the complainant’s legal claims, the Committee noted that ”expensive” is, to an extent, a subjective term, and that people will have different definitions of what constitutes “expensive” legal proceedings. While the complainant disagreed with this characterisation of the legal costs faced by the organisations who had been subject to legal action, given that legal action is often an additional and unexpected business expense, it was not inaccurate or misleading to use this term to describe the costs associated with the legal cases. The Committee therefore did not consider this reference to be inaccurate and there was no breach of Clause 1.

75. The Committee did not consider that misreporting the complainant’s height by a single inch represented a significant inaccuracy in the context of the article which discussed his discrimination claims against organisations. The Committee further noted that the article did not state the complainant spoke Latin, but simply referred to his “modus operandi”. Further, the complainant accepted he did apply for jobs with one click and therefore it was not inaccurate to state that he had applied for jobs in this manner. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

76. In regard to the article’s claim that the complainant said his disabilities meant that he needed to make his application by phone, and he requested interview questions in advance, the Committee did not consider this was an inaccurate summary of the complainant’s requests, as he had requested that he be permitted to make a verbal application for a job and previously requested interview questions in advance. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

77. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that he had told an employer the “equality act has been in place for 11 years”, as it has been in place for 14 years. The Committee noted that the article had made clear this was a comment sent by the complainant to an organisation, by way of the use of quotation marks, and the complainant did not dispute that he had said this. The Committee did not consider this to be inaccurate and there was no breach of Clause 1.

78. It was not inaccurate to report that the complainant had been rejected for a role at a specific organisation, given the complainant did not dispute he had been rejected. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

79. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report various individual’s comments as he disagreed with what they had said. The Committee noted that newspapers are entitled to publish comments and opinions, provided it is distinguished as such and from fact. In this case, these opinions were clearly distinguished as such through the use of quotation marks and terms such as: “he says this” and “[b]ut as he points out”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

80. The complainant also said he did not recall saying “[d]o you put your hand in the air and tell your story or do you let it go?" The Committee noted that, although he did not recall having said this, the complainant did not appear to recall the entirety of what he had said; he had not said that he had not made such a comment, but that he did not recall having done so. In addition, the Committee did not consider that this quote was a misleading summary of the complainant’s position as to why he pursued legal action. For these reasons there was no breach of Clause 1.

81. The complainant had said that the following breached Clause 1: “it all centres around disability discrimination legislation, which requires that job applicants are afforded ‘reasonable adjustments’ where needed”. However, the Committee noted that the complainant had not identified potentially inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information on this point, and did not dispute that his legal claims did centre around such legislation. There was no breach of Clause 1.

82. The complainant next considered whether it was inaccurate to report that the complainant “was diagnosed with dyspraxia – a condition which he says makes it difficult for him (among other things) to fill in online forms; then in 2021 he was diagnosed with autism and more recently with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)”. The Committee noted that complainant had said he had been diagnosed with these conditions. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

83. The Committee acknowledged that the complainant believed organisations could not know whether he had the right experience if they did not speak to him or send him the essential criteria, and therefore the article was inaccurate to report that this was why his applications had been rejected. However, it did not consider it was inaccurate to report that his applications were rejected “usually because he lacks the appropriate skills or experience” where the complainant accepted many applications were rejected for this reason. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

84. In regard to the article’s claim that the complainant “had been so unhappy that within six minutes of receiving the response, he was tapping out his reply”, the complainant did not appear to dispute he responded within six minutes, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

85. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that the publication had “has found 57 cases lodged on the Employment Tribunals services website, which only reaches back as far as 2017. The first documented claim seen by the Mail relates to a job application made in 2016”, as he was diagnosed a few years before but struggled to previously disclose his conditions correctly. The Committee noted the article did not state that the complainant did not have the medical conditions prior to 2016, but simply that the website listed cases from 2017 onwards. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

86. The complainant said he was unable to recall what ACAS was trying to solve as it was many years ago or why a claim made by him was struck out. This was not allegedly inaccurate, distorted, or misleading information that would raise a possible breach of Clause 1. The terms of Clause 1 were not engaged by this point of complaint.

Conclusions

87. This complaint was not upheld under Clause 1 or Clause 12.

Remedial action required

88. N/A

Date complaint received: 03/02/2024

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.