Resolution Statement – 22392-23 Grigore v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. I. Grigore complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online 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 […] WINS furious £100,000 row”, published on 6 November 2023.

2. The article reported on a legal dispute between the complainant, her husband and their neighbours. It began: “an elderly financier who threatened to kill his neighbour's cat over a tiny washing machine cupboard wedged between their exclusive Knightsbridge homes has won a furious £100,000 row.” It then stated that the judge “ordered the cupboard be returned to [the neighbour] telling the pair their passions had got 'out of proportion’ and told [the complainant’s husband] to pay his neighbours' legal costs of more than £50,000, as well as his own £52,000 bill.”

3. The article also said that the neighbour had “discovered [the cupboard] had been secretly bricked up from the inside by a previous owner and turned into a utilities space for the neighbouring flat”. It went on to report that “the two couples went to war at Central London County Court, with [the judge] saying it was accepted that a previous owner of the flat had carried out the 'land grab' by bricking up the [the neighbours'] cupboard, but that [the complainants] have no rightful claim to keep it.” It stated: “the disputed cupboard had been accessed by the [complainant’s neighbours] via an outside door on a communal courtyard between their house and the neighbouring flat, their barrister […] told the judge”, and that the complainant’s barrister had said that the complainant and her husband, “may now be selling up and leaving.”

4. The article included a photograph showing the complainant and her husband walking down the street, which the caption said was taken “outside Central London County Court”.

5. 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 her husband had been ordered “to pay his neighbours' legal costs of more than £50,000, as well as his own £52,000 bill” – 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”.

6. During IPSO’s 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.”

7. 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).”

8. The complainant also said the dispute with the neighbours had been described inaccurately. She said her and her husband had not “secretly” bricked up the cupboard; this had been done in 2011 before they moved into the property. 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.

9. The complainant also said the behaviour of the reporter breached Clause 3. 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. I asked him what kind of project, but he didn't tell me anything.” 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” but that the reporter had responded “sardonically”: "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 hade eavesdropped on conversations between her and her barrister at court.

10. The complainant said the article breached Clause 2 because she had been photographed outside the courtroom, during a distressing time, without her consent.

11. The complainant also said the article had 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 neighbour.

12. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1 of the Code. Regarding the costs of the case, it said the total costs came to just over £100,000. It said the complainant’s own costs amounted to £52,000, and the neighbour’s costs were approximately £50,000. It said the judge's order for a payment of £18,000 was what the couple had been ordered to pay on account – which is an immediate payment towards the winning party's bill ahead of full assessment. The publication said it was standard procedure in court for a considerably lower sum to be ordered by way of payment on account.

13. The publication did not accept it was significantly inaccurate to report the cupboard was bricked up from the inside by the complainant and her husband, or there was a furious row between the couples. It said was not in dispute that the parties engaged in protracted litigation and spent significant amounts of money to address their disagreement.

14. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 3. It said that, while the reporter worked on a freelance basis and had not been commissioned by the publication, it rejected any allegation of improper behaviour on behalf of the journalist who provided it with material. It provided a statement from the reporter, who described his interactions with the complainant as follows:

“There were very limited interactions with Mrs Grigore […] There was no 'stalking'. There was no 'following of her every step'. If we were in the same place as her it was because we were reporting on her case. There was no intrusion in private conversations/eavesdropping. The waiting area outside the courtroom is a public area where everyone has to wait together before being shown in by the usher prior to the start. There is nowhere else to go. Everything in our report came from open court, the documents we were supplied by the court and (in terms of costs) confirmation by both barristers.

The only verbal interaction was towards the end of the case when Mrs Grigore asked me if I was a journalist. I confirmed this and she said something about not thinking it was newsworthy. The exchange went no further than that.

In relation to her complaint about being too close to her, I do not recognise this at all. At all times, I kept as much distance as possible from her, hence photographs being taken from some distance. In relation to our brief conversation, I was sitting in a chair in the waiting area and she approached me.”

15. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2, as it said the article was simply a court report. It said photographs were taken outside court in a public place. The publication also did not accept a breach of Clause 4. It said the publication did not need to report a case in the manner the complainant may prefer or was sympathetic to her position.

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

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

17. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the online article; not to re-publish the 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.

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

19. 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: 10/05/2024