Quinton v Peirce & Anor

Quinton v Peirce & Anor

The statements in the election leaflet were not substantially false or inaccurate, nor were they published maliciously; the Data Protection Act 1998 does not provide parallel remedies for electioneering material unless factual inaccuracies are objectively demonstrated; no pecuniary loss was proven to have resulted from the publication.

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
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Injurious Falsehood, Malicious Falsehood, Data Protection Act 1998, Election Law, Defamation
Tort Data Protection Injurious Falsehood Malicious Falsehood Data Protection Act 1998 Election Law Defamation

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

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements in an election leaflet constituted injurious falsehood or malicious falsehood
  2. 2 Whether the Data Protection Act 1998 provides remedies for alleged inaccuracies in election material
  3. 3 Whether the statements were false, inaccurate, or malicious

Ratio Decidendi

The statements in the election leaflet were not substantially false or inaccurate, nor were they published maliciously; the Data Protection Act 1998 does not provide parallel remedies for electioneering material unless factual inaccuracies are objectively demonstrated; no pecuniary loss was proven to have resulted from the publication.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed