Dr Singh wrote that the British Chiropractic Association promoted 'bogus treatments' for children without evidence. The trial judge ruled this was a factual assertion requiring proof. The Court of Appeal held the statement was opinion, not fact, protecting it as fair comment and free expression.
Facts
Dr Simon Singh, a scientist and science writer, published an article in the Guardian newspaper during Chiropractic Awareness Week in April 2008. The article criticised the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) for claiming that chiropractic treatment could help children with conditions including colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma, and prolonged crying. Dr Singh wrote that the BCA made these claims ‘even though there is not a jot of evidence’ and that the organisation ‘happily promotes bogus treatments’. The BCA sued Dr Singh for defamation.
Issues
Meaning of the Words
What defamatory meaning did the words complained of bear?
Fact or Comment
Whether the words constituted assertions of fact (requiring the defendant to prove their truth) or expressions of opinion (allowing a defence of fair comment).
Judgment
The Court of Appeal, comprising the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Sedley, allowed the appeal.
The Trial Judge’s Ruling
Eady J at first instance had held that the words meant the BCA knowingly promoted bogus treatments despite being aware there was no evidence to support their claims. He ruled these were assertions of verifiable fact, not comment.
Court of Appeal’s Analysis
The Court of Appeal held that Eady J had erred in treating the statement that there was ‘not a jot of evidence’ as an assertion of fact. The Court emphasised that what ‘evidence’ signifies depends heavily on context, particularly in scientific debate about the reliability and interpretation of clinical studies.
The Court noted the evaluative nature of the disputed statements, observing that Dr Singh’s article was expressing an opinion about the quality and reliability of evidence, not making a bare factual assertion. The pleadings themselves demonstrated how value-laden the word ‘evidence’ was in this epidemiological context.
Regarding the word ‘happily’, the Court doubted whether it could bear the meaning ‘knowingly’ as the trial judge had found. The natural meaning was closer to ‘blithely’ – suggesting the BCA promoted treatments without proper regard to the want of reliable evidence.
Free Expression and Scientific Debate
The Court expressed concern about the chilling effect of libel litigation on public debate. The Court adopted the words of Judge Easterbrook from the US case Underwager v Salter:
“[Plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying ‘character assassination!’, silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models not larger awards of damages mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us.”
The Court also suggested that the defence traditionally called ‘fair comment’ would be better described as ‘honest opinion’, as adopted in other common law jurisdictions.
Implications
This case is significant for the law of defamation and freedom of expression. It establishes that evaluative statements about the quality of scientific evidence are expressions of opinion rather than assertions of fact, even when expressed in emphatic terms. The judgment reinforces the importance of protecting robust public debate on matters of scientific and public interest from being stifled by defamation litigation. The case contributed to momentum for reform of English defamation law, which subsequently occurred with the Defamation Act 2013.
Verdict: Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in treating Dr Singh’s statements as assertions of fact rather than expressions of opinion. The statements were held to be comment backed by reasons, not factual assertions requiring proof of their truth.
Source: British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350 (01 April 2010)
Cite this work:
To cite this resource, please use the following reference:
National Case Law Archive, 'British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350 (01 April 2010)' (LawCases.net, September 2025) <https://www.lawcases.net/cases/british-chiropractic-association-v-singh-2010-ewca-civ-350-01-april-2010-2/> accessed 2 April 2026
