British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350 (01 April 2010)

Science writer Simon Singh criticised the British Chiropractic Association in an article for promoting 'bogus' treatments, leading to a libel claim. The Court of Appeal held his words constituted comment, not a verifiable assertion of fact, upholding the fair comment defence.

Facts

In an April 2008 article in The Guardian newspaper titled ‘Beware the spinal trap’, the defendant, science writer Mr Simon Singh, criticised the claimant, the British Chiropractic Association (BCA), for its claims regarding chiropractic treatments. The specific words complained of were: “The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.” The BCA sued for libel, arguing that the words, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant that it was being accused of knowingly and dishonestly promoting treatments that were without evidence and therefore ineffective.

Issues

The central legal question was a preliminary issue to determine the meaning of the words complained of. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the phrase “it happily promotes bogus treatments” was an assertion of verifiable fact (as the BCA contended and the High Court judge, Eady J, had found) or whether it was an expression of opinion/comment, which would allow Mr Singh to rely on the defence of fair comment (defamation’s ‘honest comment’ today).

Judgment

The Court of Appeal, in a leading judgment by Lord Judge CJ, allowed Mr Singh’s appeal, overturning the High Court’s decision. The court unanimously held that the words constituted an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact.

Reasoning of the Court

The court reasoned that the words must be read in the context of the entire article, which was a polemical piece on a matter of public interest, namely the efficacy of certain medical treatments. The ordinary reasonable reader would understand that Mr Singh was presenting a critical viewpoint based on his stated premise that there was “not a jot of evidence” to support the BCA’s claims.

Lord Judge CJ clarified the interpretation of the word ‘bogus’:

In our judgment the metaphorical meaning of bogus, ‘spurious’, ‘false’, ‘valueless’, ‘useless’, is a well-established, ordinary meaning of the word… The words complained of thus mean that the BCA is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it promotes treatments which are bogus in the sense that they are valueless and unsupported by any evidence.

The court held that Mr Singh’s assertion that there was “not a jot of evidence” was a statement of fact upon which he then based his comment. Lord Judge CJ stated:

The proposition that there is “not a jot of evidence” is a statement of fact… on which the subsequent comment is based. To that factual basis Mr Singh added his own opinion, that for the BCA to make these claims was for it to be promoting “bogus” treatments. This is the classic case of comment on a matter of public interest.

The court distinguished this from an accusation of conscious dishonesty. An allegation that the BCA knew the treatments were ‘bogus’ would have been a factual allegation of dishonesty. However, the court found the words did not go that far; they were an opinion about the nature of the treatments themselves, which the BCA was promoting.

Implications

The judgment was a significant decision in the law of libel, particularly concerning freedom of expression in the context of scientific and public debate. It reaffirmed the importance of the defence of fair comment (now honest opinion) in protecting robust criticism on matters of public interest. The judgment highlighted the potential ‘chilling effect’ of libel litigation on journalism, science, and public discourse. By classifying the critical language as comment rather than fact, the Court of Appeal made it easier for writers and critics to express strong opinions on controversial topics without being exposed to libel actions that would require them to prove the literal truth of their subjective evaluations. This case was a major catalyst for the campaign which led to reforms in defamation law, culminating in the Defamation Act 2013.

Verdict: The appeal was allowed. The High Court’s ruling on the preliminary issue was set aside, and it was held that the words complained of were an expression of opinion.

Source: British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350 (01 April 2010)