Dale Vince's High Court claim against Daily Mail publisher thrown out

Green energy industrialist Dale Vince's High Court claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail has been thrown out by a judge.
Mr Vince brought legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over an article headlined ' Labour repays £100,000 to sex pest donor', published in June 2023.
The story reported that the Labour Party was handing back money to donor Davide Serra with a picture showing Mr Vince holding a Just Stop Oil banner.
This picture, published in print and on The Mail+ app, was changed to one of Mr Serra online 47 minutes after publication, while the original picture of Mr Vince remained in the print version.
An employment tribunal in 2022 heard Mr Serra had made sexist comments to a female colleague which were found to amount to unlawful harassment related to sex.
Mr Vince claimed ANL misused his personal data and that the publication of his photograph with this story would lead readers to believe he had been accused of sexual harassment.
ANL had defended the claim, with its lawyers previously telling the High Court in London that it was an abuse of process and a 'resurrection' of a libel claim that was dismissed last year.
In a judgment on Monday, a High Court judge threw out the data protection claim.
Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no real prospect that Mr Vince will succeed on his claim.
'As in the defamation proceedings, it is accepted that on reading the text of the article published in Mail+ and the Daily Mail any ordinary reader would very quickly realise that Mr Vince was not being accused of sexual harassment.
'Considered on this basis the personal data relating to Mr Vince was processed fairly.'
He said there was 'every reason' why the data protection claim should have been heard with the defamation claim last year.
'Both claims arose out of the same event, the publication of the article in Mail+ and the Daily Mail,' he added.
'Both claims rely on the same factual circumstances, namely the juxtaposition of the headline, photographs and caption, and the contention that the combination of the headline and the photograph created the misleading impression that Mr Vince had been accused of sexual harassment.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

14 minutes ago

• Times

Leaving oil and gas in the ground was always a pipe dream

Just call me Mystic Mac. As I forecast in this space earlier this month, the UK has finally opened the door to the development of the Rosebank oilfield off Shetland and the Jackdaw gas field off Aberdeen. Ed Miliband, the net zero secretary, famously said that drilling in these two modest reserves would constitute 'climate vandalism'. Well, it looks like he will shortly have to get his spray paint out and daub 'Just Start Oil' on the door of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. To be honest, it didn't take supernatural foresight to predict that these totemic fields would ultimately get the go-ahead. They were given licences by the last government. Production was halted only by a bizarre judgment by the Court of Session in Edinburgh. In January Lord Ericht ruled in favour of the climate activists, Uplift and Greenpeace, who argued that the UK government hadn't carried out a full environmental impact assessment of the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels downstream. It had merely provided an assessment of the carbon dioxide from the process of extracting it and piping it ashore. New methods of extraction can and are producing significant reductions in producer emissions. But the UK government had not formally included an assessment of the downstream emissions since it was deemed self-evident that burning hydrocarbons produces greenhouse gases. What did the court expect? That it would be used to oil bicycle chains and fill balloons? Shell says that Jackdaw alone would produce enough gas to heat 1.4 million households. The environmental and health impact on those households of withdrawing their main source of heating was not, of course, considered in this pettifogging ruling — because that would have required an ounce of common sense. Nor did the court recognise that the gas, which would have to be imported to fuel those domestic boilers if Jackdaw were stoppered, might produce more emissions than using our domestic supply. Yet it should be patently obvious that shipping liquefied natural gas 3,000 miles from America by tanker is more profligate in emissions than using what's produced by extraction from our backyard. The court was tacitly endorsing the perverse logic of the Scottish government and lobbyists such as Greenpeace that, in some morally inexplicable way, imported oil and gas is good while ours is bad. But Sir Keir Starmer was never going to start shutting down an industry that generates about £25 billion a year, according to Offshore Energy UK, and supports around 100,000 jobs. Pointlessly sacrificing these new fields would only have indicated to the few companies still operating in the region that the government is hell bent on closing down the North Sea prematurely. The new rules announced last week by Michael Shanks, the energy minister, will allow further development of the Cambo and Clair fields, expansion of which had also been placed on hold following the January court ruling. This whole episode served only to showcase the absurdity of what is being called the managerial 'lanyard class's' thinking about energy. The Treasury is not stupid and was never going to endorse an exercise in performative self-harm. Nor was No 10. 'Keeping it in the ground', as Patrick Harvie used to advocate, was not what Labour meant by a rational and measured transition to renewable energy. The UK depends on oil and gas for 75 per cent of its energy usage. So the UK government has rejigged the approval process to include a statement of the bleedin' obvious — viz, that burning oil and gas produces emissions. Industry sources believe, rightly, that by submitting this new and more politically correct prospectus, they will be able to go ahead. That is, if firms like Equinor haven't given up in disgust. They're already being hit by a 78 per cent profits tax on North Sea oil, which makes you wonder why they bother. It's not as if the oil price is exactly soaring right now, despite the nasty business in the Strait of Hormuz. Companies such as Harbour Energy have given up and pulled out. Norwegian-owned Equinor, in Rosebank, is hanging on, presumably in the hope that it will be well placed to bid for future wind farm development. It installed the first commercially viable floating wind farm, Hywind, off Peterhead. All of which underlines the lamentable state of our whole approach to energy. Oil companies, demonised by the environmental lobby, happen to possess the very skills and technology which will be needed if and when the green energy bonanza finally materialises. Greenpeace seems to think the wind energy in the North Sea can be harnessed by Native American dream-catchers and transmitted into people's homes by daisy chains. In fact it requires heavy-duty platforms, implanted in turbulent waters, to support wind turbines the size of the Eiffel Tower — and also the laying of undersea cables to get it to the grid (if it can be upgraded in time). This is not very different, technologically, from what fossil fuel companies have been doing for the past 50 years. Rosebank and Jackdaw are not going to solve the UK's strategic energy deficit. They are rather modest operations in a North Sea field that is in steep and irrevocable decline. The glory days are over. But we still need whatever they can provide, if only to ensure a measure of energy security and help reduce costly imports. One of the more specious arguments currently deployed by opponents of Rosebank and Jackdaw is that their hydrocarbons will be exported and are therefore of no use here. Not so: gas goes directly to the UK. Oil is mostly exported to Rotterdam for refining, but it comes back as petrol and other products. It isn't refined here because we've closed nearly all our own refineries, such as Grangemouth, because of our perverse belief that it is morally preferable to import hydrocarbons. Abandoning the North Sea won't bring forward net zero by a single day. It will merely increase our dependency on authoritarian governments in the Middle East, make energy bills even more unaffordable, and deprive the UK of billions in oil revenues to spend on the NHS. Predictably, the Scottish government has not responded to the energy U-turn. The SNP is still under the sway of environmental cretinism. No wonder Fergus Ewing, a voice of energy sanity, has decided to walk. Perhaps Ed Miliband may be following him in the not-too-distant future.

BreakingNews.ie

24 minutes ago

• BreakingNews.ie

Man charged in relation to attack on Islamic Centre in Belfast

A man has been charged in relation to an attack on the Islamic Centre in Belfast. A viable device was thrown through a window of the centre during evening prayer on Friday. Advertisement Police cordoned off the area and the public were encouraged to avoid it. On Sunday, a man aged 34 was charged with a number of offences including attempted arson with intent to endanger life. He was also charged with attempt to cause an explosion, making explosives with intent to endanger life and criminal damage. He is expected to appear before Belfast Magistrates' Court on Monday. Advertisement The attack on the Islamic Centre has been criticised by politicians over the weekend.

The Independent

41 minutes ago

• The Independent

Keir Starmer claims Kneecap Glastonbury performance ‘not appropriate'

Irish hip-hop trio Kneecap are scheduled to perform at Glastonbury next weekend, despite controversy surrounding one of its members. Band member Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh has been charged under the Terrorism Act for allegedly displaying a Hezbollah flag at a London show last year. Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated he does not think Kneecap's performance at Glastonbury is appropriate due to the ongoing court case. Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch called for the BBC not to broadcast Kneecap's performance, citing the charge and accusing the band of extremism. The band denies supporting Hamas or Hezbollah, calling the charge a distraction, and has publicly linked the issue to their support for Palestine.