British Chiropractic Association v Singh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 1101 (QB) |
| Date | 07 May 2009 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ08X02657 |
[2009] EWHC 1101 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before: Mr Justice Eady
Case No: HQ08X02657
MS H. ROGERS QC appeared on behalf of the Claimant
MS A. PAGE QC and MR. W. McCORMICK appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Words 1,344/folios 19
MR. JUSTICE EADY:
In this libel action the claimant is the British Chiropractic Association (“BCA”). The defendant is Simon Singh, who wrote a piece in the Guardian on 19th April 2008 during Chiropractic Awareness Week, which was also published online. At the moment I have to decide two questions which have been agreed by the parties. One is to determine what defamatory meaning or meanings the words complained of bear; secondly, to determine in the light of that ruling whether the words complained of made and/or contained allegations of fact, or whether they constitute comment.
The BCA is a company limited by guarantee. It was apparently established in 1925. As Lord Scott pointed out in the House of Lords in Jameel & Anor v. Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2007] 1 A.C. 359, para.125, when the court is confronted with a corporate claimant in defamation proceedings it is necessary to focus on its objects.
The BCA's aims are to promote, encourage and maintain high standards of conduct, practice, education and training within the chiropractic profession in the United Kingdom. It is said to represent about half of the chiropractors registered under the Chiropractors Act 1994, which are between about 1300 and 1400 in number.
The words complained of were taken from the third paragraph of the article.
“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 organization is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.”
That is the only reference to the BCA in the article. The meanings pleaded on the claimant's behalf are to be found at para.6 of the particulars of claim to this effect: that (a) the BCA claims that chiropractic is effective in helping to treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, although it knows that there is absolutely no evidence to support its claims; and (b) by making those claims knowingly promotes bogus treatments.
Are those straightforward words defamatory of the corporate claimant or not? If so does the reasonable reader construe them as asserting fact or merely as expressing an opinion? That is an important distinction long recognized in domestic law as well as in Strasbourg. All of us recognize the importance of the freedom to express trenchant and even offensive opinions on matters of public interest.
After some desultory correspondence, the claim form was issued on 10th July of last year together with the particulars of claim. The defence was served on 8th September. At that stage it was being admitted that the article was defamatory of the BCA in the meanings which were put forward by the defendant. There were substantive defences, both of fair comment and justification. There was a reply served on 3rd November.
The principles governing the approach of the court to determining meaning are well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Lord Mcalpine of West Green v Sally Bercow
...addition to that footnote. "For recent examples of this jurisdiction being exercised, see Bond v. BBC [2009] EWHC 539 (QB); British Chiropractic Association v. Singh [2009] EWHC 1101 (QB) in which Eady J.'s ruling on meaning was found by the Court of Appeal to have been in error: [2010] EW......
-
Joseph and Others v Spiller and Another
...sting is a matter of verifiable fact – Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) and British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2009] EWHC 1101 (subsequently reversed by the Court of 115 The repetition rule raises problems in relation to fair comment. It has been stated that fair comment ca......
-
Frank Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd
...defamatory sting is a matter of verifiable fact – Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) and British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2009] EWHC 1101 (subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal)." HONEST COMMENT APPLIED TO THIS CASE 50 There are two points which Mr Cook contends the T......
-
Bartholomew Umeyor v Felix Nwakamma
...cannot apply where the defamatory sting is a matter of verifiable fact: Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) and British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2009] EWHC 1101 (QB) (subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal [2011] 1 WLR 133)." 78 Although the Defendant would not choose ......