Resolution Statement – 22390-23 Grigore v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. I. Grigore complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Financier in cupboard row […] ”, published on 7 November 2023.

2. The article – which appeared on page 24 of the newspaper – reported on a legal dispute between the complainant, her husband, and their neighbours. It described some of the details which had emerged during the dispute and the “furious row over the ownership of a one-metre-square cupboard.” The article described the cupboard as “a space, which has a door onto a shared courtyard” and said the complainant and her husband “became embroiled in a dispute” when their neighbours “discovered that the cupboard had been secretly knocked through and turned into a utility space for [the complainant’s] flat”.

3. The article then said that the “judge rejected [the complainant’s] claim at Central London County court, leaving the couple with no cupboard and a bill thought to be more than £100,000.” It reported the judge “said it was accepted that a previous owner had carried out the ‘land grab’” but the complainant and her husband “had no rightful claim to keep [the cupboard]”. It said that the cupboard, “which is accessed by an outside door in a shared courtyard”, had been part of the complainant’s neighbours’ home. It also said that “the disputed cupboard was previously accessed through an outside door by the [neighbours], who had used it to store sports equipment. However, they had not used it since 2010”. It contained an image of the cupboard with the “disputed space” labelled, as well as a photograph of the complaint and her husband which showed them walking along a street. It then said the judge “made an order that the cupboard be returned to [the neighbours] and that [the complainant and her husband] foot the lawyers’ bills for the dispute. It stated it “was only when [the complainant and her husband] invited them round that the [neighbours] discovered it had been ‘unlawfully incorporated’ into the flat by a previous owner. It finished by reporting the complainants “have to pay £18,000 upfront towards [the neighbour’s] bills, which are estimated to be more than £50,000, on top of their own costs of about £52,000.”

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline: “Financier[…] in row over cupboard wins court case.” The sub-headline of the online version read: “Awful’ dispute with banker and wife living near Harrods ran up £100k legal bill”, and the text of the article reported that the complainant and her husband “have now been left with no cupboard and the £100,000 lawyers’ bill for the dispute”.

5. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it incorrectly reported the cost of her legal fees. During direct correspondence with the publication, the complainant said her legal fees were £18,000. She later said to IPSO the fees were £31,000.

6. Later during the investigation the complainant said – while the article reported that the legal costs were “thought to be more than £100,000” – the total fees were £40,800 at the time of the article’s publication, and this included £18,000 of her neighbours’ costs which she had been ordered to pay. To support her position, the complainant also supplied a General Form of Judgment or Order dated 2 November 2023 which stated that she and her husband “shall pay the sum of £18,000 to the [neighbours] by no later than 4pm on 21 November 2023 on account of the costs”.

7. Later during the investigation, the complainant’s barrister provided a statement to IPSO, which said:

“The journalist then asked me what the costs were. I said that I could not be sure but as both parties used counsel directly instructed I said that thankfully the costs were not that high. I said that I could not be sure what my clients' costs were but I guessed around £20,000. The Defendants' costs were £18,000. So I said I guess under £50,000. The journalist then said so shall we say £100,000. I rather flippantly said if he wanted to say that then sure as, judged by the journalist’s insistence on his proposed costs figure of £100,000, I guessed that £50,000 costs would not be very newsworthy.“

8. The complainant also provided a client care letter from her barrister which stated: “the fixed fee will be £20,000 plus VAT (£24,000 incl. VAT).”

9. The complainant also said the dispute with the neighbours had been described inaccurately in the article. She said her and her husband did not “secretly” brick up the cupboard; this had been done in 2011 before they moved into the property. She further said it was inaccurate to report the patio outside was shared with her neighbours; she said it was a communal area shared with flats in another building, though one of the neighbours party to the dispute could “enter the patio area for the purposes of maintaining her property and installation of dustbins.” She also said the cupboard was not accessible by an outside door: the only access was through a bathroom inside her home. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to describe an incident with her neighbour as a “furious row” given the measured conduct of the complainant and her husband. The complainant also said the article was one-sided and omitted information about their dispute with their neighbour in a manner which rendered it inaccurate. For instance, the complainant said it reported a claim made during court proceedings by her neighbour, but not her rebuttal.

10. Later during the investigation, the complainant also said that a reporter acting on behalf of the publication had breached Clause 3. The complainant described an interaction between her and the reporter in the indoor area near the courtroom during the trial. The complainant said the reporter did not initially identify himself to her, and when she approached him to ask who he was, “he replied that he was a freelance agent working on a project.” She said that when she had asked him what kind of project he was working on, he had declined to say. The complainant said she responded by stating “there was so much heartbreak and sadness that I had witnessed just by sitting and waiting in the hallway outside the courtroom and that I wouldn't understand why someone would want to write about that. That I believe that there is so much more out there in the world that one can write about”. The complainant said that, in response, the reporter “sardonically” said: "don't you worry, we are all going to see what you have to say!” She also said she felt watched and hounded by the reporter, who she also alleged had eavesdropped on conversations between her and her barrister at court.

11. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2 because it included a photograph of her which had been taken outside the courtroom, during a distressing time, without her consent. She also said the article contained an image of the cupboard, which she considered to be private, and questioned how this was obtained.

12. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 4 because it compounded the distress felt by her and her partner due to the court case and the ongoing dispute with her neighbours.

13. The publication did not accept the article had inaccurately reported the costs of the trial. It said a reporter acting on its behalf had spoken to barristers on both sides of the dispute about costs. After the judgment was given in the court case, he approached the two barristers at the back of the courtroom, and asked the complainant’s barrister if it would be correct to say the case would cost the complainant “six figures”. The reporter said the barrister had said “something along the lines of ‘yes just over’, and then “held up a piece of paper which [he] presumed to be a cost schedule but he didn’t see it”. The reporter also said the barrister representing the opposing neighbours “did not verbally confirm it but did not disagree”. The reporter said the barrister had said “the [complainants] costs were ‘more than theirs’, meaning his opponents”. The reporter said he “did not make a note of the conversation as it was a casual friendly exchange”, but that immediately following the interaction he sent a WhatsApp message to colleagues saying “just over £100,000 costs for the banker”, the “banker” being the complainant’s husband. The message was sent at 1.37pm; the hearing ended around 1pm.

14. The publication also did not accept it had inaccurately reported the details of the dispute with the neighbours. It said it was not inaccurate to refer to the cupboard as having been “secretly knocked through and turned into a utility space for their neighbours’ flat”, as the previous occupants of the complainant’s property had not informed the neighbours they were using the cupboard. It said it was accurate to describe the patio as communal, as many people had access to it and the complainant herself stated that the neighbours were allowed to enter the patio area for specific purposes. The publication said the article made clear the cupboard was originally accessed by the door in courtyard, but access had been obstructed by the wall built inside the cupboard by the previous residents of the flat. The publication also said that an incident which was described during the hearing meant that the dispute between the parties could accurately be described as a “furious row”. It did not accept its report was one-sided and said the complainant’s concern on this point did not engage Clause 1.

15. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 3. It said the complainant’s objection was to the reporter presence during legal proceedings, which could not constitute a breach of the Code. It said the complainant’s account suggested the reporter did not even approach her.

16. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2 or Clause 4. It said the article was a report of a case that was brought by the complainant herself and heard in open court. It said the images of the cupboard area came from the complainant’s barrister and had appeared in evidence laid before the court; the complainant, therefore, had no reasonable expectation that the details revealed through these legal proceedings would remain private. It said reporting those details and photographing the complainant outside court did not engage the terms of Clause 4.

17. On 17 April, approximately two months after receiving the memo from the complainant’s barrister, the newspaper offered to publish the following in its Corrections and Clarifications column:

“We said [the complainant and her husband] faced a legal bill of more than £100,000 as a result of a property dispute (News, Nov 7). While this was reported in good faith, Ms Grigore and her legal representatives have since informed us that the real costs are under £50,000. We are happy to put this on record.”

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 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

Mediated Outcome

18. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

19. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the online article and the associated online material about herself, her husband and her cat; and not to cover the 2023 court case again in the future.

20. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.

21. 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: 09/11/2023

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/05/2024