Quinton v Pierce
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE EADY |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 912 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ07X03635 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 30 April 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 912 (QB)
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Case No: HQ07X03635
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Mark Warby QC and William Bennett (instructed by Manches LLP) for the Claimant
Anthony Speaight QC (instructed by Goodman Derrick LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 1—6 April 2009
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Mr Justice Eady:
The parties to the dispute
This is a case which ventures into largely uncharted territory. It also presents difficulties on the facts. It is a dispute between two district council candidates from Woodcote in Oxfordshire. The Claimant is Mr Christopher Quinton, the Conservative candidate in the elections of May 2007, who was defeated by the Liberal Democrat candidate, Mr Robin Peirce. Four years earlier, in the elections of May 2003, the boot had been on the other foot. Mr Peirce had been ousted by Mr Quinton.
Mr Peirce is the First Defendant and is sued in respect of an election leaflet said to contain a number of untrue factual statements about Mr Quinton. Both men have clearly rendered sterling service over the years to their local community in various ways, but it is unhappily clear that no love is lost between them. The Second Defendant is Mr Peirce's election agent, Mr David Cooper.
The two causes of action relied upon
The claim is not brought in libel: what is alleged is that Mr Peirce published the allegations maliciously. The claim is not confined, however, to the tort of injurious falsehood. Mr Warby QC, on Mr Quinton's behalf, seeks to rely in the alternative upon what are said to be infringements of the principles set out in the schedule to the Data Protection Act 1998. I presume that this has been brought into the case against the possibility that the Claimant fails to establish one or more of the essential ingredients for the common law cause of action, such as malice or a tendency to cause financial loss. The 1998 statute also offers in ss.13 and 14 remedies not available at common law. Thus, I am required to consider a number of its provisions, which Mr Warby says are notoriously badly drafted. That is not for me to say. I confine myself to observing that it clearly reflects the European Directive (95/46 EC), to achieve compliance with which it was introduced. I intend to take a cautious approach and not to venture into questions of interpretation any further than I strictly need for resolving the pleaded issues on the facts which have emerged in evidence.
Mr Warby's submissions are very wide ranging. It seems that he contends for a parallel code to regulate the publication of information, which would exist alongside the conventional common law remedies, such as defamation and injurious falsehood, whenever allegations are made about a “data subject” by means of a computer. That is subject to exemptions for journalism which, the Defendants concede through Mr Speaight QC, have no application to this election leaflet.
Mr Warby complains that in this case the leaflet infringes two of the principles in the statute, namely the requirements for fairness and accuracy. I understand the principal criticism to be that Mr Peirce was economical with the truth and, in so far as his allegations were true, they did not represent the whole truth. Mr Speaight argues that if candidates in elections were not allowed to be partial, biased and economical with the truth, litigation lawyers would have a field day. It would undermine our democracy if politicians, whether at a national or a local level, were required to be impartial and balanced in their coverage of an opponent's conduct or policies. While Mr Warby recognises that much leeway has to be permitted, he suggests that there is a requirement not to misrepresent the facts. In this context, of course, there is much scope for debate as to what is misrepresentation and what is opinion or merely rhetorical licence.
The statements contained in the offending leaflet
For the moment, I must turn to the material of which complaint is made and identify the respects in which it is said to be inaccurate. There seem to be three allegations in the leaflet about Mr Quinton in particular, which it is fair to say even Mr Peirce's own agent, Mr Cooper, described as “negative whingeing” prior to publication. That warning, however, seems to have gone unheeded by Mr Peirce. All these criticisms centre upon a crucial issue for Woodcote residents, namely planning policy and its implications for potential housing development in and around their village.
The first passage in the leaflet is as follows:
“… MORE HOUSES IN BEECH LANE?
At a crucial planning meeting in Crowmarsh, attended by many local residents and Parish Councillors, strong representations were made to persuade the committee to refuse planning permission for the housing development off Beech Lane. Robin Peirce and all who made the effort to go to Crowmarsh were appalled that Chris Quinton failed to attend the meeting, failing to speak and urge refusal of the unneighbourly planning application.
OUR VILLAGE DESERVES BETTER REPRESENTATION AT CROWMARSH.”
This refers back to a meeting held a year before, at 6 pm on 5 April 2006. While it is true that Mr Quinton did not arrive at the meeting until the Beech Lane item on the agenda had been dealt with, he contends that it is a misrepresentation to give the impression that he did not “make the effort”. He had rung the Chair of the meeting, Mrs Pearl Slatter who gave evidence before me, in order to establish in advance when the item was likely to be reached. He then decided that he would be able to attend another meeting (in Oxford) and still arrive in Crowmarsh, about ten minutes after the meeting had begun, in time to speak against the proposal. As things turned out, much to the surprise of Mrs Slatter, the first item was cancelled at short notice and Beech Lane was dealt with somewhat earlier than anticipated and before Mr Quinton's arrival. Mr Peirce had seen him arrive late, in a somewhat flustered state, and therefore must have realised that he had intended to speak on the subject.
Mr Warby argues that in these circumstances the description in the election address was a deliberate misrepresentation and therefore malicious. He did, however, at the conclusion of the evidence, recognise that the witnesses who had been present, including Mrs Slatter, gave an account which strongly suggested that Mr Quinton did not arrive until at least 6.30 or possibly 6.45 pm. Moreover, had he arrived at 6.10 pm, there would have been plenty of time for him to speak on the Beech Lane issue. From the number of speeches, and the five minute slots allocated to them, it was possible to work out that discussion on the topic went on until about 6. 45 or 6.50 pm. It would thus seem to be clear that the cancellation of the first item on the agenda did not, by itself, account for Mr Quinton's failure to arrive on time.
The second item to be addressed in the leaflet concerned another planning application:
“… HOUSING AT THE VILLAGE CROSSROADS
At a large public meeting in Woodcote residents overwhelmingly objected to the application. Following a refusal by SODC [South Oxfordshire District Council] of planning permission for houses opposite the village hall crossroads, a public inquiry was held in Goring. While Robin Peirce, supported by many residents and other Parish Councillors, spoke at the inquiry to urge refusal of the application, Chris Quinton failed to take any part in the inquiry.
OUR VILLAGE DESERVES BETTER REPRESENTATION FROM WOODCOTE'S DISTRICT COUNCILLOR.”
On this occasion, Mr Quinton did attend the meeting but, according to his evidence, he did not make any contribution because he realised that the appeal would be dismissed and saw no need to do so. It is accepted, therefore, that he took no part in the inquiry, apart from attending it, but he objects to the criticism that he “failed” to do more. The witnesses who had been present on this occasion queried how Mr Quinton could have been so confident that the appeal would be dismissed. The inspector gave no such indication and indeed it would not have been appropriate for him to do so.
When the matter had been discussed earlier at a public meeting convened by the Parish Council on 16 May 2006, Mr Quinton took no part in the proceedings because he regarded it as contrary to good practice to do so, given that he was a substitute member of the planning committee and might have been called upon to participate in the decision. Had he spoken at that meeting, and expressed his opinions, he would have precluded himself from playing such a role. By the time of the appeal, however, he was free from this inhibition.
The third item is more general in nature and purports to state Mr Quinton's attitude to significant housing developments in the village:
“NEW LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT?
Local Conservative Councillors are actively encouraging significant housing developments on the edge of Woodcote. On the front page of the Woodcote Correspondent, May 2006, Chris Quinton wrote 'South Oxfordshire needs to provide more houses … to accommodate new residents attracted to the area by the buoyant economy and good living standards … suggested sites for development from landowners should be submitted to … the Council Offices … ' Woodcote now has more proposed housing sites than any other village in South Oxfordshire. ROBIN PEIRCE REMAINS TOTALLY COMMITTED TO PROTECTING WOODCOTE FROM UNWANTED LARGE DEVELOPMENTS AND LOSS OF RURAL VILLAGE...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd
...in relation to non-commercial wrongs: theft from an employer ( Joyce v Sengupta [1993] 1 WLR 337), the content of an election leaflet ( Quinton v Peirce [2009] FSR 17), sexual allegations ( Khodaparast v Shad [2000] 1 WLR 618) and privacy ( Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62); as well as in......
-
Fiona George v Linda Cannell
...a case based on my own research which appeared to be relevant to the issue apparently in dispute. This is the case of Quinton v Peirce [2009] FSR 17. 175 The parties then exchanged further written submissions in which, for the first time, the Ds explained their position on the law on sectio......
-
NT 1 and another v Google LLC (Information Commissioner intervening)
...personal data about an individual to the effect that he was involved in money laundering (see Tugendhat & Christie, op cit at 7.25). In Quinton v Peirce [2009] EWHC 912 (QB) [2009] FSR 17 [27]–[29], [92] Eady J applied the single meaning rule when assessing whether data were inaccurate wi......
-
Fiona George v Linda Cannell
...a false statement … in respect of which he is relieved from proving damage by the Defamation Act 1952, the law gives him a remedy”. In Quinton v Peirce [2009] EWHC 912 (QB), [2009] FSR 17, Eady J rejected the claimant's case of actual loss but upheld his case under s 54 Secondly, there ar......