14 Whether the privilege is or is not lost, in cases of publication to persons having no relevant interest or duty, consequently raises questions of fact and degree (the test being, as McLure J has said, an objective one). Here, the attack on All-Fect was made to 178 schools. The reply was made to 1000 schools. Plainly, the vast majority of those who received the reply had no interest (in the legal sense) in reading it. Nor did they have any relevant duty. Consequently, if All-Fect and Mr Essey had known that the newsletter was published only to 178 schools (and which schools they were), there could be no question of any qualified privilege in respect of the response which was published to the other 822. However, All-Fect and Mr Essey say that they did not know to how many, and which, schools the newsletter had been sent. Had they inquired about this, and had the appellants refused to provide the necessary information, I would have had a good deal of sympathy with the position in which All-Fect found itself. However, All-Fect made no such inquiry, notwithstanding that it undoubtedly had the opportunity to do so, even given that, as the trial Judge pointed out, it had to move quickly. Of course, the possibility exists that the inquiry would have been met with more defiance, and a refusal to answer it, but the evidence did not establish that a response of that kind would have been forthcoming, more particularly (as McLure J has pointed out) if the appellants were told what would be the consequence of a refusal and if the information provided was to be kept confidential to the respondents' solicitors.