Resolution Statement – 22391-23 Grigore v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. I. Grigore complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph 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 “Bankers make £100k court battle out of cupboard row”, published on 7 November 2023.

2. The article reported on a legal dispute between the complainant and her husband and their neighbours. It stated: “a neighbours’ dispute over a one-metre square utility cupboard in a communal garden has escalated into a £100,000 court case”; and “the cupboard had been part of [the neighbour’s] home, accessed via an outside door, until [the neighbours] discovered it had been secretly bricked up from the inside and made part of the neighbouring flat, owned by [the complainant].” The article also stated the “battle” between the neighbours “even led to a doorstep stand-off”. The article reported that the judge “said it was accepted that a previous owner of the flat had carried out the ‘land grab’” but the complainant “had no rightful claim”. It also reported that the judge ordered the complainant and her husband to pay the neighbours’ “costs of more than £50,000 plus their own bill of about £52,000”. The article included a photograph of the complainant and her husband leaving court.

3. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline: “Knightsbridge neighbours in £100,000 court battle over one-metre square utility cupboard”. The online article closed by reporting that the judge had “made an order that the cupboard be returned to [the neighbours] and that [the complainants] must foot the lawyers’ bills for the dispute. They have to pay £18,000 up front towards [the neighbours] bills, which are estimated to be over £50,000, on top of their own costs of around £52,000”.

4. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it incorrectly reported the cost of her legal fees. She said that – while the article reported that she had been ordered to pay the neighbour’s “costs of more than £50,000 plus their own bill of about £52,000” – 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 said 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”.

5. 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.”

6. 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).”

7. 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 also said the cupboard was not accessible by an outside door: the only access was only through a bathroom inside her home. 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.

8. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2 because she said she was photographed outside the courtroom, during a distressing time, without her consent.

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

10. The complainant also said that a reporter acting on behalf of the publication had breached Clause 3. The complainant described an interaction which had happened between her and a 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 was eavesdropping on conversations between her and her barrister at court.

11. The publication denied a breach of Clause 1 regarding the costs of the court case. It said the court reporter specifically asked both barristers if the costs in the case were above six figures and had been told that they were. It said also said that, after the hearing, the reporter had been told by the complainant’s barrister that his costs were £52,000 and the other side's costs were £50,000. It also said the £18,000 ordered to be paid towards the other couple’s costs was a “payment on account” ahead of an assessment of the final amount. It said the complainant’s barrister had spoken with the reporter for approximately 45 minutes outside of court after the judgment hearing about various matters, including costs, the layout of the dispute and other cases he has been involved in.

12. The publication did not accept that the dispute between the neighbours had been described inaccurately. It said the article made clear the judge accepted the previous owner of the flat was the person responsible for the “land grab”, rather than the complainant and her husband. It said the article was not one-sided and was an accurate summary of court proceedings: it included details of the behaviour of both parties during the dispute; a short summary of the ownership of both properties; and informed the reader of the judge's ruling.

13. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 3. It said the only interaction between the complainant and the reporter was “one very short conversation when she approached him in the waiting area outside court a couple of days later and said something to the effect that she did not think the case was newsworthy.” It said that, although the claimant and the reporter were often in the same area of the court building, this was because he was covering the case and there was nowhere else to go but stand in the waiting area outside the court, rather than because he was attempting to eavesdrop. It said the reporter maintained a distance from the complainant by standing on the opposite side of the waiting area outside court.

14. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2 or Clause 4. It said the images of the complainant were taken while her and her husband were attending court as party to legal proceedings with no reporting restrictions in place, and there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in this situation. It said the complainant’s concerns did not engage Clause 4.

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

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

16. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the online article; not to re-publish article’s content, providing there were no further developments in the case; and to remove the information about the complainant and her family including her cat from its internal archives.

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

18. 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