A weekly newspaper was ordered to republish a correction after a “pedantic” former MP complained about its wording and prominence.

Former South East Cornwall MP Sir Robert Hicks complained to the press watchdog over an article in the Cornish Times which incorrectly stated he had been defeated in the 1997 general election when in fact he had retired.

The Times swiftly corrected the error, but Sir Robert was not satisfied with the wording or prominence of the correction and continued his complaint.

The Tindle-owned newspaper claimed he was being “pedantic” – but IPSO partially upheld the complaint and ordered the correction to be republished.

The issue arose following a report of the death of Colin Breed, who succeeded Sir Robert as the MP in 1997.

It included the line: “Mr Breed successfully defeated incumbent MP Robert Hicks in the 1997 general election, retaining the seat before stepping down in 2010”.

In fact Sir Robert had not stood at that election having previously announced his retirement.

The Times then published a correction both online and in print which read: “In the above story we suggested that the late Colin Breed defeated Robert Hicks to win the South East Cornwall seat. In fact, Mr Breed won the seat during the 1997 election following Mr Hicks’ retirement. The Cornish Times is happy to set the record straight.”

However this did not satisfy Sir Robert who objected to the use of the word “suggested” and the fact that the correction had been placed on page 4 as opposed to page 3 where the original articfle had appeared.

He said that the article had not “suggested” that “the late Colin Breed defeated Robert Hicks” but that it had stated incorrectly that he had.

The Times acknowledged that the original version of the article was significantly inaccurate, and therefore required correction, but argued that this had been done promptly in the next available edition of the newspaper.

Regarding the complainant’s objections to the corrective action already taken, it said it considered them to be “pedantic”.

In its ruling, IPSO said it was not in dispute that the original article had been significantly inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 of the Editor’s Code and therefore required correction.

However the Code Committtee said that it it had generally required corrections to appear on the same page, or further forward, than an initial article, and that in these circumstances, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) in respect to the print article.

In the light of this factors, the Committee considered that the republication of the correction, on page 3 or further forward, was the appropriate remedy.

The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 and the full ruling can be read here.