Cases

Quinton v Peirce & Cooper

Held

Finding for the Ds:

(1) The words did not bear the meanings contended for by the C.

(2) They were not false in the meanings found by the court.

(3) The Ds had not acted maliciously.

(4) The words were actionable per se as they were likely to have caused the C to lose income linked to the office of district councillor.

(5) It was neither necessary nor proportionate to interpret the scope of the Data Protection Act so as to provide a parallel set of remedies for the publication of information which was neither defamatory nor malicious. The judge was particularly perturbed by the remedy of rectification sought under the Act which, if awarded, would have meant that the Defendants would have had to have published a retraction to the original publishees. The judge held that, in any event, this remedy could only be granted where the facts said to be inaccurate only had one possible interpretation.

(6) The publication complained of did not cause the C to lose the election.

Also