Resolution statement – 22393-23 Grigore v Daily Express

Summary of Complaint

1. I. Grigore complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Express 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 “[…] £100k 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 that “a financier […] has won his bitter £100,000 legal fight.” It stated that the neighbours discovered the cupboard had been “bricked up from the inside” and “turned into a utility area for a neighbouring flat”, which was then purchased by the complainant. The article stated that the judge ordered the complainant and her husband “to pay the lawyers’ bills, expected to top £100,000.” It ended by reporting that the complainant’s barrister had “said they may now sell up and leave”.

3. 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 “the lawyers bills” were “expected to top £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 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”.

4. 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.“

5. 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).”

6. The complainant also said the dispute with the neighbours had been described inaccurately in the article. She said it was inaccurate to report the patio outside was shared with her neighbours; it was a communal area shared by 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.” The complainant also said it was inaccurate to describe an incident with her neighbour as a “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.

7. The complainant also said the behaviour of the reporter was harassment in breach of Clause 3. The complainant said that 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”. The complainant said 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.

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 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 neighbour.

10. The publication did not accept it had reported the costs inaccurately. It said the costs had been referred to by the complainant’s barrister in a conversation within the courtroom after the hearing had ended. To support its position, it supplied a WhatsApp message sent by the reporter immediately after the hearing had ended, which included this figure. The publication said it was therefore satisfied that it was accurate to report that the legal bills 'were expected to top £100,000'.

11. The publication did not accept the article inaccurately reported on the dispute between the neighbours. It said the article was a fair, accurate and balanced report of proceedings in open court.

12. The publication denied a breach of Clause 3; it stated the reporter did not conceal his identity.

13. The publication did not accept there was a breach of Clause 2 or Clause 4. It said the information in the article was heard in open court, and the publication was entitled to report on it.

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

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

15. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove a single, third party version of the article. It also advised it did not see another reason for the newspaper to cover the court case in the future.

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

17. 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: 07/05/2024