In recent years, press interest in the phone-hacking litigation has soared, driven by high-profile claims including the trial of the Duke of Sussex and others against newspaper group MGN Limited (MGN) in 2023.

The latest claim to have captured the lens of the press relates to a claim brought against MGN by former international footballer Kieron Dyer in relation to voicemail interception and the misuse of private information. National law firm TLT settled the claim for Mr Dyer, reaching an out-of-court settlement with MGN, which included the newspaper group paying damages and apologising in a Statement in Open Court (SIOC). In this article Rebekah Finch, a legal director at TLT, outlines the key takeaways from the claim and explains the important role of the SIOC in reputational disputes.

Dyer v MGN Limited

The claim focused on articles published in MGN’s newspapers, including the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and the People, and alleged unlawful activity from 1998 to 2011.

Mr Dyer asserted his voicemail messages were intercepted by MGN’s journalists who were consequently privy to private and confidential messages from family and friends, leading to the publication of articles in MGN’s newspapers.

MGN has admitted to unlawfully intercepting Mr Dyer’s voicemails between March 2003 and December 2004 and using private investigators to unlawfully obtain private information on eight occasions in 2003 and 2005. However, MGN denied, or did not admit, that the articles were the product of unlawful information gathering activities.

Mr Dyer was significantly impacted by press intrusion at the time and remembers being followed and approached by journalists and photographers at his family home and on nights out. He felt that the articles published by MGN led to significant distress and have had a negative impact on his private life and mental health.

The Statement in Open Court (SIOC)

A SIOC is a public apology delivered in court after a case has settled, serving as a fair and proportionate account of the proceedings and any settlement reached, subject to the court’s approval. Typically, a claimant uses a SIOC to explain their claim, its impact, and to highlight any apologies from the defendant.

SIOCs are a significant remedy in reputational disputes, particularly in defamation cases. The process is set out in Practice Direction 53B, rule 3.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. This sets out that SIOC are available when a Part 36 or other settlement offer is accepted in relation to a claim for libel, slander, malicious falsehood and the misuse of private or confidential information. However, it was clarified in Sooka v Palihawadana, a data protection claim, that the Court has a general power to grant a SIOC in appropriate cases, and is not limited to the causes of action in Practice Direction 53B.

SIOCs are usually an agreed statement, where the defendant publicly apologises and acknowledges the wrongdoing. They can also be made unilaterally, with the Court’s permission.

Negotiating and obtaining a SIOC can be:

· a cost-effective way to resolve a claim earlier in the proceedings.

· beneficial for claimants who are offered a Part 36 or other settlement, which are too good to refuse, but ideally still want their ‘day in court’

· useful in privacy cases where the sensitive information would be further exposed if the parties reached trial.

A well-crafted statement can achieve several objectives:

· set the record straight when false or misleading personal information has been disseminated, which is particularly important in the digital age, where information spreads rapidly and is difficult to retract.

· mitigate the damage caused and rebuild the claimant's reputation. In the phone hacking litigation, SIOC have been valuable for claimants who have accused family members and friends of leaking information.

· provide a sense of vindication for the claimant, particularly as they will invariably attract press interest.

Negotiations with the defendant play a vital role in shaping the content of the statement. Open communication and a willingness to compromise are necessary to secure a statement that adequately addresses the claimant’s position. 

The courts recognise the value of SIOC and are generally reluctant to intervene and modify the wording. The court’s main consideration will be that the words do not give rise to real or substantial unfairness. The threshold for intervention is high and the statement will not be disallowed over nit picking. 

A SIOC offers a way to set the record straight, restore reputations, and achieve vindication without the uncertainties and costs of a full trial and/or where the assessment of damages may be difficult.

In the case of Dyer v MGN, the SIOC provided Mr Dyer with a vehicle to share the impact of MGN’s actions on his life, reclaim control of the narrative and secure a more satisfactory result, exemplifying the powerful role of the SIOC. 

Rebekah Finch is legal director at law firm TLT.