Jo Wallace, the global creative director of Wunderman Thompson, has emerged victorious from the High Court after settling her claim against Daily Mail and Mail Online publisher Associated Newspapers over an article that wrongly accused her of being involved in a sex discrimination case.
In a joint statement that was agreed with Wallace, Associated Newspapers issued "sincere apologies" to her and paid "substantial damages" and costs for defamation, breach of GDPR and breach of copyright.
Writing on LinkedIn, Wallace said that after "seven arduous months I went to the High Court today [9 March] for the Statement In Open Court regarding the false, reputation-shattering articles the Daily Mail published about me."
Thanking her supporters, whose messages she said "truly lifted me", she added: "Finally, the truth is out".
Wallace launched the legal action after MailOnline and the Daily Mail published two articles about a London employment tribunal case, which ruled in July 2021 that two male colleagues of hers at J Walter Thompson (now part of Wunderman Thompson) were ousted unfairly "because of their sex" in 2018.
MailOnline, in particular, published a number of personal photographs and other personal information about Wallace, in spite of the fact that she had nothing to do with the redundancy process.
She said she received death threats as a result of the articles.
Wallace told Channel 4 News' Cathy Newman at the time: "What does this tell women already under-represented in this industry? Why would [they] want to go into this industry when you see myself being treated like this?
"It's had a massive impact on my life. I haven't slept for several days, I've had death threats. I've been plastered all over the media in bikinis – I mean, why?
"I had nothing to do with this case. I had nothing to do with the decision to make them redundant. [Pictures of] me wearing a bikini is clearly an attempt to take me down and embarrass me in public, so it's incredibly distressing."
Wallace herself wrote a about the articles, describing them as "what can only be described as a hatchet job on a woman with no involvement".
She also decried the sexist, homophobic and racist undertones of the coverage, asking: "Why is my partner (wife) mentioned and also pictured other than to project more sexist, homophobic, racist undertones?"
Dozens of complaints, including by advertising executives, were made to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about the Mail's coverage.
However, Wallace decided to follow a legal process and issued a complaint through her solicitors on 2 August and subsequently put forward a detailed offer of settlement on 8 September, according to the court ruling.
As part of that settlement, on 5 October, the defendant, Associated Newspapers Limited, agreed to pay substantial damages, not to re-publish the words or images complained about, to make a joint statement in court, to issue an apology and cover Wallace's legal costs.
The defendant also agreed to amend the online version of the article, removing photos of Wallace and a video featuring soundbites from one of her networking events.
Distress, embarrassment and upset
The agreed statement that was read out in court explained the chronology of events.
On 23 July, MailOnline published an article entitled "Two men win sex discrimination payout" that included intimate photos of Wallace.
The following day, the Daily Mail newspaper ran a piece under the headline "The very Mad Men! Tribunal backs 'straight white men' fired by ad firm's gay female boss".
The report wrongly alleged that Wallace had disciminated against them because they were male, leading to their sacking; while insinuating that the episode marked an attempt to "obliterate their culture within the agency they worked for".
The reality was that Wallace was neither party to the proceedings, nor was she a witness. She was not the "boss" of the pair, as the Mail's coverage claimed.
The photos published in the coverage included seven images of Wallace used without her permission, some taken from her private Instagram account. Images showed her on holiday in a bikini, while others depicted her in personal moments between her and her wife.
They both "processed the claimant's personal data unlawfully" and were "published in breach of the claimant's copyright", the court was told in the statement.
The joint statement continued: "The Defendant's publications have had a lasting effect on the Claimant as the articles were not only shocking and embarrassing but as a result of their publication and the impression they made, she has suffered substantial damage to both her career and her reputation. Further, the Claimant is particularly distressed by the impact the articles have had upon her family."
Associated Newspapers' legal counsel offered its "sincere apologies to the Claimant for the distress, embarrassment and upset caused to her by the publication of the Daily Mail article and the photographs complained of in the articles", the ruling said.
"The Defendant accepts there was and is no truth in the allegations advanced in the Daily Mail article and that her copyright in the photographs were infringed.
"The Defendant is happy to set the record straight and apologise to the Claimant for the breach of her rights and for the distress caused to her by its publication of the articles".
Wallace's solicitor said that in "light of the order which has been made and this statement, the claimant considers that the matter is now concluded".
While Wunderman Thompson would not comment on the outcome of the case, ±±¾©Èü³µpk10 understands the agency supported her court claim and sourced her legal representation.
±±¾©Èü³µpk10 has contacted Daily Mail and MailOnline publisher DMG Media for comment.
.jpg)
.jpg)