British Chiropractic Association v Singh

In determining meaning, the court must consider what was actually published and the natural meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader. Express criticism of an identifiable corporate body is not converted into criticism of an unidentifiable class merely because it concerns a profession generally. Allegations that an organisation knowingly presents treatments as effective despite an absence of supporting evidence are allegations of verifiable fact and may amount to allegations of dishonesty. The classification of words as fact or comment depends on substance, not on headings or labels. A defendant cannot rely on fair comment where the defamatory sting is a matter capable of proof by evidence.

The British Chiropractic Association brought a libel claim against Simon Singh concerning an article published in The Guardian and online. The article stated that the Association claimed chiropractic could treat various childhood conditions despite there being no supporting evidence, and that it promoted bogus treatments. The parties agreed that the court should determine the defamatory meaning of the words and whether they constituted allegations of fact or expressions of comment. The judgment concerned those preliminary issues.

1. The words referred expressly to the British Chiropractic Association, rather than merely to chiropractors as an unidentifiable class. The court had to focus on the publication actually made, not on a possible article which the defendant might have written.
2. The pleaded meaning was upheld. The words conveyed that the Association claimed that chiropractic was effective for specified childhood conditions despite having no evidence to support those claims, and that it knowingly promoted bogus treatments.
3. “Bogus treatments” conveyed quack remedies dishonestly presented as effective when there was known to be no supporting evidence. The allegation that the Association promoted them “happily” conveyed that it acted with knowledge and was content to present them as useful and effective. It was therefore an allegation of plainly defamatory and disreputable conduct.
4. The words were factual assertions, not merely comment. The allegations were verifiable by evidence, including whether those responsible for the Association’s claims knew at the relevant time that there was no evidence to support them. The defence of fair comment could not apply to that defamatory sting, although the article appeared under a heading referring to comment and debate. The issue depended on substance rather than labelling.

The claim form and particulars of claim were issued on 10 July 2008. A defence was served on 8 September 2008, initially admitting the defamatory meanings advanced by the defendant while relying on fair comment and justification. This judgment determined the agreed issues of meaning and fact or comment.