Quinton v Peirce & Anor [2009] EWHC 912 (QB) (30 April 2009)

Quinton v Peirce & Anor [2009] EWHC 912 (QB) (30 April 2009)

The statements in the election leaflet were not substantially inaccurate or false, but rather constituted partisan comment or opinion. No malice was established on the part of either defendant. The Data Protection Act 1998 was not breached as there was no substantial inaccuracy or unfairness in the processing of personal data. The claims for injurious falsehood and breach of data protection principles both failed.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 912
Parties
Claimant: Christopher John Quinton; First Defendant: Robin Heys Peirce; Second Defendant: James David Cooper
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2009
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Injurious Falsehood, Malicious Falsehood, Data Protection Act 1998, Defamation (comparison), Election Campaign Statements, Personal Data, Malice, Accuracy and Fairness in Data Processing
Tort Data Protection Election Law Injurious Falsehood Malicious Falsehood Data Protection Act 1998 Defamation (comparison) Election Campaign Statements +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher John Quinton

Claimant

Robin Heys Peirce

First Defendant

James David Cooper

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements in an election leaflet constituted injurious falsehood (malicious falsehood) against the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the statements breached the Data Protection Act 1998, specifically the principles of fairness and accuracy
  3. 3 Whether the defendants acted with malice

Ratio Decidendi

The statements in the election leaflet were not substantially inaccurate or false, but rather constituted partisan comment or opinion. No malice was established on the part of either defendant. The Data Protection Act 1998 was not breached as there was no substantial inaccuracy or unfairness in the processing of personal data. The claims for injurious falsehood and breach of data protection principles both failed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed