Intro
Manifesto
Journalists
Archive
IMPRESS reject arbitration and compensation claim from ex MP over Esther Baker investigation story
David Hencke
February 3, 2018
 The claim is made against a publisher regulated by IMPRESS.<br /> The Committee was satisfied that the claim was made against a publisher (Byline) that was regulated by IMPRESS at the time of the act complained of (6 September 2017).<br /> (ii) The claim is related to one of the areas of law covered by the scheme.<br /> The Committee was satisfied that the claim related to an area of law covered by the scheme, namely defamation and harassment. With regards to the claim for harassment however, though this related to one of the areas covered by the scheme, the Committee determined that the claim for harassment did not satisfy the relevant test. This was because, under a claim for harassment, a ‘course of conduct’ required two or more events to be characterised as such. The claimant therefore could not bring a claim against the publisher for the publication of one article.<br /> (iii) The claim is not a pre-publication matter where it is appropriate for it to be directed to the courts.<br /> The Committee was satisfied that the claim did not relate to a pre-publication matter where it was appropriate for it to be directed to the courts.<br /> (iv) The claim provides a clear statement setting out the harm or financial loss suffered by the claimant.<br /> The Committee was not satisfied that the claim clearly set out the harm or financial loss that the claimant had suffered as a result of the published article. It noted that the claimant largely relied on the fact that the article was part of a wider campaign against him which he accepted that Byline was not a party to.<br /> (v) The claim describes a specific action or activity of a publisher that has caused the alleged harm or financial loss.<br /> The Committee was not satisfied that the claimant adequately described how it was the article published by Byline that caused the alleged harm and loss to the claimant. This is because, although the claimant identified specific harm and loss caused by the ‘wider campaign’, the claimant failed to specify any harm or loss which arose as a direct result of the article published by Byline. The Committee determined that any harm or loss caused to the claimant by the publisher was trivial or incidental in conjunction with the remainder, and was thus too insignificant to meet the test.<br /> (vi) The claimant explains why the complaint is not suitable for resolution by the IMPRESS complaints procedure.<br /> The Committee accepted that given that (i) the complaint did not, on the face of it, appear to engage the Standards Code and (ii) the claimant sought financial compensation as a remedy, it was not suitable for resolution by the IMPRESS complaints procedure.<br /> In conclusion, the Committee decided that the claimant’s request for arbitration should be refused on the grounds that parts (iv) and (v) of the test were not met.</p>
</div>
</div> </main>
<footer class=)
