05884-24 Tan v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Celia Tan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Divorcee who took neighbours to court after she complained about their drumming daughter must pay £150,000 after judge brands her 'incapable of acting reasonably'’”, published on 9 October 2024.

2. The article reported the complainant had taken “court action against her neighbours after complaining about their daughter playing the drums has been ordered to pay estimated court costs of £150,000.” It said the neighbours were involved in “a bitter court fight”, with arguments “over the position of the boundary between their houses, rainwater nuisance and multiple claims of harassment against [the claimants].”

3. The article reported the judge had dismissed the case and had ordered the complainant to pay the court bill, which it said was “estimated pre-trial at about £150,000, with £77,500 up front towards the [claimants’] costs”. The article went on to report “the judgment was given in April, but not made public until this week after Ms Tan's application to appeal was passed to High Court judges' case workers".

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

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

6. The complainant also disputed that the judgment had been publicly released. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate because she said she did not take the couple to court, but rather they had instigated legal proceedings.

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

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

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

10. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Regarding the alleged breach of Clause 1 it said the figure of £150,000 came from the reporter’s notes taken during the pre-trial hearing. It said the judge stated that "the loser [of the court case] will have to spend £150,000 sorting it out". It supplied a copy of the notes to support this position. The publication said the figure of £150,000 – which it said the article made clear was the judge’s estimate of the total costs for both sides in this case – had previously been used in other headlines it had published and in other publications without complaint. It said at the time the article was published there had been no assessment of costs; it was simply the case that the complainant had been advised she would be liable for costs on both sides. The publication said where the judge had previously made an estimate to this effect, it was reasonable to report the figure.

11. Notwithstanding the publication’s position that it was reasonable to report the judge’s estimate for the costs, it said as the order provided by the complainant stated she owed £77,500, it was happy to amend the figure within the article to £110,000.

12. On 17 October, 8 days after the complainant first contacted the publication on 9 October, it amended the headline of the article to “Divorcee who took neighbours to court in '150k row' after she complained about their drumming daughter must pay court costs after judge brands her 'incapable of acting reasonably'.”

13. It also published the following correction as a footnote to the article:

This article has been amended following an earlier publication which suggested that Celia Tan had been ordered to pay £150,000 following judgement in the case. We are happy to clarify that, as stated in the article, she was ordered to pay £77,500 on account, and the reference to £150,000 came from the judge’s estimation of total costs at a previous hearing.

14. The publication disputed complainant’s position that the judgment had not been made public. It said the judgment was provided to the reporter by the judge's clerk, which was approved by the judge himself. The publication said it was therefore satisfied it was accurate to describe the judgment as public. It provided a copy of the judgment it said it had obtained from the court to support its position. The publication said the article made clear, as did the judgment, that the legal action consisted of multiple claims and counterclaims. It said the text of the article stated: “Ms Tan, 53, is counter-suing her neighbours for £85,000 to compensate for an alleged reduction in value of her home caused by trespass, encroachment and damage.” The judgment stated, “the action concerns a boundary dispute and multiple claims and counterclaims concerning allegations of nuisance, trespass and harassment between neighbours in Ruislip”.

15. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It said the Code does not prohibit photographing individuals without their knowledge and consent, rather it prohibits photographing when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It said the image of the complainant was not taken in a place where she had this expectation, but instead in public, outside of court. It said the image did not reveal anything private about the complainant but simply showed her likeness.

16. The publication did not accept the complainant’s concerns around harassment engaged Clause 3. It said the Clause related to the behaviour of journalists engaged in information-gathering, and not the post-publication effect of an article on its subject.

17. The publication did not accept Clause 10 was engaged. It said the images were not taken covertly as defined by the Clause.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

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

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

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

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

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

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

Clause 3 (Harassment)*

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

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

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

Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*

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

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

Findings of the Committee

18. The Committee first considered whether the publication had taken care not to report inaccurate information in stating that the complainant had been ordered to pay £150,000. It was not in dispute that the judge had at one point estimated the total costs for the case – which the complainant did not dispute she would be liable to pay – would be £150,000. The publication had accurately reported and kept a written record of information which had been heard in court; the judge’s remarks were a matter of legal record and it was entitled to rely on them for its reporting. Additionally, there were multiple articles which predated the one under complaint which described the dispute as having £150,000 costs. Although information emerged during the investigation which indicated the figure for costs differed from what was initially reported, the Committee considered the publication had taken care over the accuracy of the information it had originally published. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

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

20. The Committee then considered whether the remedial action proposed by the newspaper addressed the terms of Clause 1 (ii). It noted that the correction set out the original inaccuracy and put the correct position – that the complainant was ordered to pay £77,500 on account – on record. Further, where the correction was offered eight days after the publication became aware of the inaccuracy, the Committee considered it to have been offered sufficiently promptly. It considered a footnote correction to be prominent enough, taking into account the fact the article was also amended to remove the original inaccurate information, the headline was based on a previous estimation from the judge, and was only inaccurate in relation to the sum of compensation to be paid; not that compensation should be paid at all. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

21. Legal documents are generally public due to the principle of open justice and there was no evidence presented which suggested this particular court case had been subject to any reporting restrictions. The publication was also able to produce a copy of the judgment. Considering these factors, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to report the judgement had been made public. Further, where the judgment explicitly referred to “multiple claims and counterclaims” between the complainant and her neighbours, the Committee did not consider it inaccurate to report the complainant had taken her neighbours to court. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

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

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

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

Conclusions

25. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

26. The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 26/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/05/2025

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.