The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint by Ms Viktoria O’Keeffe that the Business Post breached the Code of Practice in respect of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights).
She has insufficient information with which to make a finding in relation to Principle 5 (Privacy).
The Material
The complaints concern two articles published in August and September 2025. The first article was headlined “Botox Wars: Businessman sues wife over ‘commercial sabotage’.” (The online headline refers to his “ex-wife”). It is a court report about High Court proceedings brought by the man against the complainant, described in the article as ‘his estranged wife’ and her sister. The complainant is also described as a “former co-director”. The report is based on claims by the plaintiff and counter-claims by the defendants. It concludes with the statement that the case is to return to court the following week.
The second article was headlined “Businessman’s ex-wife to ‘take steps’ to return clinic’s social media control.” This is also a court report, which notes the High Court has heard that the row between the man and his “ex-wife” has been resolved after a series of agreements were reached between the parties.
The complainant initially referred also to a third article published the following month but did not supply this to the Press Ombudsman and made no further specific reference to it.
The Complaint
Under Principle 1, the complainant said the articles contained multiple factual inaccuracies, including reference to her as the “ex-wife” of a “businessman”, and that the article had implied wrongdoing on her part.
Under Principle 2, she said the articles “blend facts with speculation and opinion”, and referred to “sensational” phrases such as “Botox Wars” and “commercial sabotage”.
Under Principle 3, she said she had not been given the opportunity to comment on the article before publication.
Under Principle 4, she said her professional photograph had been published without her consent alongside inaccurate content in a way that was damaging to her reputation.
Under Principle 5, she said her “personal image, taken from private professional materials” was used without permission to illustrate a “negative” story, and that this was an invasion of privacy without public interest justification.
The complainant sought a range of corrections and apologies in print and online.
The Response
On Principle 1 The publication stated that both articles are court reports. It said the first article had clearly stated the relationships between the parties and noted its reference to the businessman having brought proceedings against “Viktoria O’Keeffe, his estranged wife…”
It said it was clear the claims made were contested allegations and that the complainant’s responses were included. It said the article left no doubt as to the stage the case was at, noting that it ended with the date it was to return to court.
It said the second article clearly indicated how the case had been finalised, noting that while an interlocutory injunction hearing had been scheduled, the judge had been informed that the matter had been resolved.
On Principle 2 the publication said the term “Botox Wars” was “common media phraseology” and that the reference to “commercial sabotage” was from court filings and was attributed to same.
On Principle 3 the publication said the articles were contemporaneous and routine reporting of a contested court case. It said they were balanced and accurate.
It said it was not common practice to contact parties in court cases to supply additional commentary. It said it had outlined the complainant’s position and included comprehensive quotes from her affidavit.
On Principle 4 it said the articles detailed a court case “which is a public forum”. It said the photograph used was “from a public forum promoting the business and was used in that context.”
On Principle 5 it denied the article was from a private source, stating that it was from a public post by a person referenced in the case on a professional social media account. It said it showed the women in work uniforms against a white background. It said its use was “normal news gathering”.
The Decision
The Press Ombudsman finds that these articles are both contemporaneous court reports and that Principle 7 of the Code of Practice notes that “nothing in this Code shall limit or prohibit the fair and accurate reporting of legal proceedings.”
The Press Ombudsman must therefore deal with those aspects of the complaint that deal with fairness and accuracy in the context of the Principles cited.
She notes that under Principle 1 the complainant states that she is wrongly described as “the ‘ex-wife’ of a ‘businessman’”. The Press Ombudsman notes that the headline of the first article refers to the businessman suing his “wife” while the opening paragraph of the article refers to his “estranged wife”. The headline of the second article refers to the businessman’s “ex-wife”.
The publication states that it correctly refers to the complainant as the man’s “estranged wife”. The complainant does not indicate which designation is accurate.
The Press Ombudsman has insufficient information with which to make a finding on this matter.
The Press Ombudsman notes that the report of the substantive matters at issue in the case are presented in a balanced manner. In an ongoing court case a publication is required to present contested evidence and is therefore not presenting statements made by the parties as if they were factual or accurate. She does not find commentary which is extraneous to the court case in either article. She finds that Principle 1 was not breached.
On Principle 2, she again notes that a court report is based on legal documents. She notes that the headline attributes the term “commercial sabotage” to such a document by placing it in inverted commas. She finds that the term “Botox Wars” reflects popular attitudes to such matters and is acceptable in a headline. She finds that Principle 2 was not breached.
On Principle 3, she accepts the publication’s assertion that it is not normal practice for parties to a court case to be contacted in advance of publication of reports on the proceedings. There is no breach of Principle 3.
On Principle 4, the publication states that the photograph was taken from “a public forum promoting the business”. The complainant states that it was taken from “private professional materials”. The Press Ombudsman does not know the provenance of the photograph and therefore has insufficient information with which to make a finding on this matter. However, she does not find that its publication in the context of the court report was damaging to the complainant’s reputation. She finds that Principle 4 was not breached.
On Principle 5, the Press Ombudsman again notes that without knowing the provenance of the photograph she has insufficient information with which to make a finding as to whether or not its use represents a breach of the complainant’s privacy.