The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint by a woman 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), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights).
She had insufficient information with which to make a finding in relation to Principle 5 (Privacy).
The Material
The complaints concern two articles published in Autumn 2025. The articles are court reports about High Court proceedings brought by a man against the complainant’s sister – referred to in the headline as his “wife” and in the article as his “estranged wife” - and the complainant. The report is based on claims by the plaintiff and counter-claims by the defendants. It concludes that the case is to return to court the following week.
The second article reports that 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
The complainant provided a Formal Complaint under Press Council Code of Practice which she had submitted to the editor of the publication along with a summary which she also described as her Formal Complaint. The Press Ombudsman has considered both documents.
Under Principle 1, the complainant said the articles contained multiple factual inaccuracies, including that she had been “falsely described as the ‘ex-wife of a businessman’” and that the High Court had made findings against her.
Under Principle 2, she said the coverage “blends fact, speculation, and editorial opinion without distinction”. She said the use of certain words in one of the headlines suggested wrongdoing unsupported by facts.
Under Principle 3, she said the publication had not contacted her to seek comment or verification.
Under Principle 4, she said her “professional photograph” had been used without consent in a way that created “the false impression of misconduct”.
Under Principle 5, she said her “personal image” was used without authorisation to illustrate a “negative story”. She said this was an invasion of privacy without public interest justification.
She said the articles had caused her “serious reputational and professional harm”.
The Response
The publication stated that the articles were “contemporaneous and routine reporting of a contested court case” and were balanced and accurate. It said the third article covered the outcome of the case as stated in court.
The publication said the articles made it very clear that claims made in court were contested allegations and that responses from the complainants were included.
It said the first article had ended with a note that stated that the case would “return to court next Friday”. It said the second article stated that the judge had been informed that the matter had been resolved and that a series of rulings would be made “with the consent of the defendants”.
The publication said the single photograph it used was a public post by “one of the parties in the court case” on a professional social media account. It said the complainant and her sister were in work uniforms. It said no details of location were present and that it was not an invasion of privacy.
Decision
On Principle 1, the Press Ombudsman notes that early in both articles the publication referred to the complainant as the sister of the “estranged wife” of the businessman. Although the headline focusses on the marital relationship, the photograph is of both women. The reader would assume that the headline refers to just one of them.
The article is clearly framed as a court report in which evidence is given that reflects both sides of a range of contested issues. It is recorded that the proceedings were resolved by consent after “a series of agreements” were reached between the parties.
The Press Ombudsman is satisfied that these are fair and accurate accounts of legal proceedings which are protected under Principle 7.1 of the Code of Practice. There is no breach of Principle 1.
Under Principle 2, she again notes that these are court reports. She finds that a term used in one of the headlines reflects popular attitudes and is neither sensationalist nor misleading. She notes that other words used are quoted from a court document and are placed in inverted commas to show this. There is no breach of Principle 2.
On Principle 3, the Press Ombudsman notes that court reports are based on material presented in court. It is not normal practice for publications to seek comment from parties to a case until after proceedings are concluded.
On Principle 4, the publication asserts that the photograph was from a public post on a professional account, while the complainant asserts that it was a professional photograph but not for public use without her consent. 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.
She finds however that the material alongside which it was published consisted of a fair and accurate court report which did not suggest misconduct and that therefore it did not risk harming her personally or professionally as asserted. She finds there was no breach of Principle 4.
On Principle 5, the Press Ombudsman again notes that she is unable to establish the status of the photograph and therefore has insufficient information with which to make a finding in respect of breach of privacy. She finds however that this was not, as asserted by the complainant “a negative and misleading story”. She also notes that court reports are published in the public interest.