British Chiropractic Association v Singh

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a professional association representing approximately half of the chiropractors in the United Kingdom, alleges defamation by the Defendant, a scientist and science writer. The Defendant published an article on 19 April 2008 in a national newspaper's "Comment and Debate" section, containing statements that the Plaintiff claims impute dishonesty and promote "bogus treatments" without evidence. The parties agreed to have two preliminary issues determined by the trial judge: the defamatory meaning of the words and whether they constituted assertions of fact or comment. The judge found the words to be defamatory assertions of fact, requiring the Defendant to prove their truth at trial. The Defendant appealed this decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What defamatory meaning do the words in the article bear?
2. Do the words constitute assertions of fact or expressions of comment/opinion?

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The trial judge erred by conflating the issues of meaning and comment, which are distinct.
• The judge applied an incorrect "verifiable fact" test that improperly excluded comment as a defence.
• The decision placed an undue burden on the Defendant to prove what was essentially a value judgment.
• The judge overlooked the context of the article and paraphrased the words in a damaging manner.
• The approach diminished the importance of public debate on matters of public concern.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The trial judge correctly identified the defamatory meaning of the words.
• The judge properly concluded that the words were assertions of fact, not mere comment.
• The finding on meaning is a factual determination that should only be overturned if clearly wrong.
• The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant must prove the truth of the factual assertions to succeed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the statements complained of, focusing on whether they were factual assertions or protected comment. It acknowledged the trial judge's extensive experience but found error in treating the statement "there is not a jot of evidence" as a verifiable fact rather than an expression of opinion. The court recognized that the subject matter, involving epidemiological evidence and scientific debate, inherently involves contested inferences and value judgments.

The court noted that the Defendant's article, situated in a "Comment and Debate" context, expressed a critical evaluation of the evidence supporting the Plaintiff's claims. The phrase "not a jot of evidence" was understood as a value judgment about the quality and reliability of evidence, not a literal assertion of fact. Consequently, the related allegation that the Plaintiff "happily promotes bogus treatments" was also an opinion rather than a factual charge of dishonesty.

The court further explained that requiring the Defendant to prove the truth of such opinions risks chilling public debate on matters of health and science. It emphasized that scientific controversies should be resolved through discussion and evidence rather than litigation. The court rejected the Plaintiff's attempt to convert evaluative statements into verifiable factual assertions, thereby limiting the availability of the fair comment (honest opinion) defence.

In sum, the court concluded that the trial judge erred in law by mischaracterizing opinion as fact and thereby imposing an improper evidential burden on the Defendant.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed.

The court reversed the trial judge's ruling that the statements were assertions of fact requiring justification. Instead, it held that the contested statements were expressions of opinion (fair comment/honest opinion) supported by reasons. This decision removes the Defendant's burden to prove the literal truth of the statements and protects critical scientific commentary within public debate. The ruling directly affects the parties by permitting the Defendant to rely on the honest opinion defence at trial. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the application of fact versus comment in the context of scientific controversy and defamation law.