British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Blue Bubble said:
Sorry for *bump*ing this thread.

What was the eventual outcome of the case in terms of actual monetary payments ?

I'm presuming Simon was awarded costs.
Click to expand...

I think you may be presuming too much. I had a quick google, but the most recent reference I could find was from May, from the man himself:

In my own case, it took two years before the British Chiropractic Association dropped its case against me, leaving me with my article intact, but probably several tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket – the wrangling over costs has barely started.
Click to expand...

And a number of articles from around the time of the judgement (15 April) seemed to think he'd get some of his costs but end up around £60,000 out of pocket.
 
Rolfe said:
I believe so. I think in this particular instance the difference is actually quite substantial.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I asked "Jack of Kent" about this at TAM London. He agreed that it must be different as the same "Libel hunting" does not seem to happen north of the border, but he was completely up front that he's not qualified in Scots Law and could not give an authoritative answer.
 
I wonder how the Alliance of UK Chiropractors (AUKC)/British Chiropractic Association (BCA) meeting with the General Chiroproactic Council (GCC) is going today?
The BCA approached the Alliance to work collaboratively which has culminated in a joint letter to the GCC advising them that we no longer have confidence in the ability of the GCC to regulate the profession. The Alliance and the BCA will be meeting with Council on 17th November 2010 to discuss this matter…

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6564649&postcount=5
Click to expand...
 
Another libel decision relating to "fair comment", this time from the Supreme Court: Fair comment is dead. Long live honest comment

The defence of fair comment – which will now, according to the supreme court, be renamed "honest comment" – in a defamation action is regarded by many as "the bulwark of free speech". While the supreme court agreed in its judgment this morning with the solicitor advocate for the defendants that the case was "a storm in a teacup", they noted: "The storm is considerable. It involves consideration of one of the most difficult areas of the law of defamation, the defence of fair comment."
Click to expand...


There is a Press Summary on the Supreme Court website, and of course the full judgment.

I'm not sure where this leaves the Court of Appeal's comments about "fair comment" and "honest opinion" in BCA v. Singh.
 
Some more coverage: Supreme court changes fair comment defence in libel cases

In a unanimous decision on the defence of fair comment – a Victorian rule originally designed to protect art critics from being sued for libel – the court said the law should be updated to make it more simple, and to take account of changes in technology and the modern media.

...

"The defence is clearly going to feature more significantly now," said Sarah Webb, partner and head of media, libel and privacy at Russell Jones & Walker. "Whilst the Singh case widened the understanding of what was comment rather than an assertion of fact, today's judgment states that the comment must now only explicitly or implicitly indicate at least in general terms the facts upon which it is based."
Click to expand...
 
Less more complicated. Lawyerese 101: "Never use one word where two can be squeezed in."
 
Soapy Sam said:
Less more complicated. Lawyerese 101: "Never use one word where two can be squeezed in."
Click to expand...

Sounds like a challenge ;)

"Do not make use of a single word in circumstances where it is possible for more than one to be utilized in its place." ?
 
Eschew the usage of concise words and or phrases wherein there exists the possibility of making a full utilization of a sesquipodalian polysyllabic and or multi word alternative.
 
It is an aphorism much to be recommended that the non-plural employment of language units should be avoided when the opportunity for the inclusion of multiple units of a broadly similar sententious nature presents itself to the writer.
 
I was surprised to find the following email from Simon Singh in my inbox today. It 's a reply to one I sent him some months ago. It seems Simon is ploughing through his backlog of email, which is surely a Herculean task.
I've snipped a comment in response to specific points in my original email.
I think what remains is of sufficiently general interest to anyone who followed the campaign so far, that he will not object to it being posted here.



I am sorry for the huge delay in replying, but I had a backlog of emails that accumulated during the libel case and I am only now able to start tackling my inbox.
Also, recent fatherhood has been a distraction, albeit a much happier one.

Many thanks for your email and words of support. Since winning my case, the bad news is that other scientists & science journalists are still being sued for libel, but the good news is that the Government seems to be listening to public concern and is drawing up a draft defamation bill, which is due in March. However, we need to maintain pressure if the bill is to deliver the required reforms in libel law. So, please continue to encourage people to sign the petition for libel reform: http://www.libelreform.org/sign

I am still fighting to get back my legal costs from the BCA. I will certainly end up losing money, but I will be ok. I would steer you towards donating to the libel reform campaign. The money will be used well to hold the Govt to its promise.
http://www.justgiving.com/libelreformappeal2011

Best Wishes,
Simon.







 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom