The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint from a man who stated that the Farming Independent breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) in respect of an article published in 2025.
The complainant was a director of an export company that went into receivership over a decade ago. The article described moves made by the company to sort out its financial affairs after exiting receivership. It referred to “shockwaves” in the industry and to the scale of losses sustained by a key market sector as a consequence of the company’s historic collapse.
Under Principle 1 the complainant asserted that significant inaccuracies had been published in a distorted report. He said the company had never owed creditor markets the sums stated in the article, and that a percentage referred to by the publication in relation to certain markets was also incorrect. He said that he had challenged some of the contemporaneous press reports cited by the publication at the time, including by way of complaint to the Press Ombudsman.
Under Principle 2 he said the publication had relied on conjecture and unconfirmed reports despite the availability of correct and truthful information.
Under Principle 4 he said the publication had stated that the company in question had “collapsed” when it was obvious that it did not. He said this was “deliberately malicious and prejudiced”. He said he continued to operate in the sector. He said the article had attempted to taint the good name of the company, his family and himself, and was a “gross and malicious misrepresentation”.
In response to the complaint, the publication referred to a High Court Judgment, which it appended, as well as to contemporaneous press reports related to the financial difficulties faced by the company at a period over a decade ago. It noted that there had been considerable public interest reporting on these matters.
The publication referred to the source material it had drawn upon, in particular the “Undisputed Facts” section of the Judgment, which described the international significance of the company and its dominance in particular markets. It also quoted from a statement made to a Joint Committee of the Oireachtas which was cited in the article. It said the article also made use of contemporaneous reports which described the impact of the receivership and referred to the “collapse” of the company and to the “turmoil” caused due to the scale of debt owed to its Irish markets.
It noted that in relation to the complainant’s objection to material which originated in contemporaneous reports, that he had not provided any evidence to refute it. However, it noted that as a “gesture of goodwill” it had removed a figure from the online article and offered that if the complainant wished to provide a figure he asserted to be correct it would be willing to add this (subject to its own editorial checks).
It said that figures given as an estimate of the scale of the company’s debts were “clearly attributed” and not presented as definitive or confirmed. It noted that it had offered to facilitate an interview with the complainant so that he could discuss issues raised in the article and his ambitions for the future.
In a lengthy reply, the complainant rejected the publication’s response to his complaint. He stated that he had made complaints about the contemporaneous reports relied upon and insisted that the company had not collapsed and had remained solvent. He appended detailed historical records on the status of the company.
Decision
The Press Ombudsman notes that this is an article about a contemporary situation which is rooted in events which happened over a decade ago. She finds that the publication provided her with key documents used in preparation of the published article. She has considered this material. She has also reviewed the document on the company’s accounts provided by the complainant.
On Principle 1, she finds that the article makes use of the “Undisputed Facts” section of a High Court Judgment. Having read relevant sections of the Judgment, the Press Ombudsman finds that the article fairly and accurately reflects its contents. She notes that the publication also quotes fairly and accurately from statements made to an Oireachtas committee.
She finds that the publication was entitled to rely on contemporaneous press coverage of the impacts of the Judgment against the company and its entry into receivership. She notes that while the complainant stated that he had challenged the accuracy of press reports after they were published, he does not supply any evidence that they were found to be inaccurate. They remain on the public record.
She notes that the publication offered the complainant a range of opportunities to give his version of events, and that it removed a figure he said was incorrect “as a gesture of goodwill”.
The Press Ombudsman finds that Principle 1 was not breached.
On Principle 2, the Press Ombudsman finds that the material on which the article is based is fairly and accurately attributed to identified sources and that there is no presentation of comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports as if they are fact, and therefore no breach of Principle 2 of the Code.
On Principle 4, the Press Ombudsman notes that the publication made one change and offered to make another subject to the complainant providing new information. It gave him the opportunity to be interviewed and to provide his own account of the history of the company and of his hopes for the future.
The article is a straightforward news story about the company’s efforts to sort out its finances after exiting receivership. The company is described as a well-known exporter. The article refers to an upsurge in trade in its field of operations and to statements made by the complainant in recent legal papers which the publication claims to have seen. It refers to a statement from him about the “completely different” situation in the industry today compared with when the company suffered challenges.
She finds no suggestion of the kind of malice or prejudice referred to by the complainant.
The Press Ombudsman notes that the contemporaneous reports provided by the publication in response to the complaint refer to the company having collapsed. She finds that the High Court Judgment supports this description, referring to the circumstances of it going into receivership and to its being insolvent.
The Press Ombudsman notes that she has reviewed a document on the company’s accounts provided by the complainant and finds nothing in this to support his complaint in this regard.
She finds that Principle 4 was not breached.