Luke Gardiner Ltd and The Irish Times

The Press Ombudsman has decided that The Irish Times made an offer of sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint by Luke Gardiner Ltd. that an article in that newspaper on 11 February 2010 relating to a property owned by the complainants in Henrietta Street, Dublin, had breached Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 3 (Fairness and Honesty) and 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

The article commented negatively on some aspects of the condition of the property, and included an estimate of the cost of refurbishment. The complainants maintained, through their solicitors, that the article contained numerous factual inaccuracies, and that its commentary had failed to include other, contextual material that would have portrayed the property in a much more positive light. The complainants’ solicitors invited the newspaper to set out how it proposed to remedy the injury done to their client, and put the newspaper on notice of their intention to hold it liable for costs, expenses, loss and damages that might arise from a sale of the property below value or a failure to sell at all, and for the damage done to their trade and reputation.

The newspaper responded that the article’s description of the property were statements of the author’s opinion and were neither inaccurate nor incorrect. While the newspaper initially said that it had no proposal to make to the complainants, it subsequently, following the intervention of the Office of the Press Ombudsman, invited the complainants to submit a letter for publication which could set out their view on the condition of the property and the cost of restoring it. This offer was rejected by the complainants.

The complainants submitted a list of what they claimed to be inaccuracies, untruths, distortions and uninformed conjecture in the article. With some insignificant exceptions, referred to below, all the statements in the article believed by the complainants to be inaccurate – and in particular the writer’s estimate of the cost of refurbishment - were plainly published as the author’s opinion. Some possible exceptions, including alleged inaccuracies in relation to statements about details of the doorway, balusters and windows, were in some cases definitional but were in any event insignificant in the context of the overall article and of the Code of Practice.

The complainants also claimed that their property rights had been affected in that the value of the property had been reduced, and their right to a good name was affected in that they had been portrayed as a bad landlord. The article as a whole does not substantiate these claims.
The complainants, in rejecting the offer of publication of a letter, did so on the grounds, inter alia, that it was not an appropriate or proportionate redress and that a considerable delay had occurred between the publication of the original article and this offer. However, the newspaper’s initial rejection of the complainants’ criticisms of the article, and its decision not to make an offer at that stage, can be considered as a normal initial response by a publication to a threat of substantial and potentially costly legal action.

The newspaper’s subsequent offer to publish a letter from the complainants setting out their view on the condition of the property and the cost of restoring it was therefore, in all the circumstances, a reasonable and sufficient response to the complaint.

9 November 2010

Luke Gardiner Ltd. appealed the Decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.