British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Simon fights on:
http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/08/simon-fights-on.html

And the skeptical bloggers also fight on:

Will Trading Standards now take on the General Chiropractic Council?
http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2009/08/will-trading-standards-now-take-on.html

Looking much further down the line, we can expect the results for this proposed RCT of chiropractic treatment for infantile colic by the end of 2011 or early 2012:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00954759

Simon Singh's oral re-consideration of his application for Permission To Appeal will be at a public hearing at the Court of Appeal in London on 14th October 2009.
 
I’ve followed this thread from the beginning, and it seems to me that there are two major aspects to it.

1. A dedicated purveyor of woo-woo – whether they believe it is valid or not is irrelevant - has sued a critic who has described it as it is: bogus. If we, as a society, let this pass, it bodes ill for anyone else who criticises other forms of woo-woo, such as (but not limited to) homeopathy and the like. I have, as a matter of interest, recently come across something called Body Talk. The display I saw relied on the typical testimonials from “successfully treated” clients, without (it seems) any idea of double blind trialling of it. I didn’t bother talking to the purveyor: I chose to keep my blood pressure below volcanic levels.

2. We are expecting Simon Singh to fight this case from his own resources. OK, Simon has written three successful books (two of which are on my shelves) which are funding his defence, but to expect him to fight an action which is important to us all without support from the wider sceptical community does seem to me to be somewhat unfair. I am unsure of the exact legal position, but it does seem to me that setting up a fighting fund to support him would be a good idea.

Maybe we should do something to support him.
 
Paul W said:
... I am unsure of the exact legal position, but it does seem to me that setting up a fighting fund to support him would be a good idea.

Maybe we should do something to support him.
Click to expand...
Before going too far, one must research that option. I have recently read that if you support his defense you could be further liable if the judgment exceeds his funds. That is, if they clean him out they can then come to you for the balance.

Perhaps Jack of Kent will drop by and tell us.
 
Paul,

The claim is that if we contribute to a fighting fund we expose ourselves to unlimited personal liability should Simon lose. While I might be tempted, my girlfriend would kill me if I even thought about contributing.
 
JJM said:
Before going too far, one must research that option. I have recently read that if you support his defense you could be further liable if the judgment exceeds his funds. That is, if they clean him out they can then come to you for the balance.

Perhaps Jack of Kent will drop by and tell us.
Click to expand...

Where did you read that? In the US that is definitely not true.
 
JJM said:
Before going too far, one must research that option. I have recently read that if you support his defense you could be further liable if the judgment exceeds his funds. That is, if they clean him out they can then come to you for the balance.

Perhaps Jack of Kent will drop by and tell us.
Click to expand...

skeptical said:
Where did you read that? In the US that is definitely not true.
Click to expand...


There's a short article about "Third Party Funding" here (pages 01-02).
 
Mojo said:
There's a short article about "Third Party Funding" here (pages 01-02).
Click to expand...
That article is not really describing the situation that we are having.

It states that "The ancient legal principles of champerty and maintenance prohibit a party with no legitimate concern in a case from supporting and profiting from it without just cause or excuse."

Apparently, some companies treat court cases as investments, and they will be willing to support it is there is a reasonable chance to get their money back with a profit.

However, nobody are suggesting a business arrangement where the third party profits from a successful case. I would be very surprised if supporting Simon Singh by sending him money could be construed as "champerty", which defined by dictionary.com as "a sharing in the proceeds of litigation by one who agrees with either the plaintiff or defendant to help promote it or carry it on."
 
steenkh said:
That article is not really describing the situation that we are having.

It states that "The ancient legal principles of champerty and maintenance prohibit a party with no legitimate concern in a case from supporting and profiting from it without just cause or excuse."

Apparently, some companies treat court cases as investments, and they will be willing to support it is there is a reasonable chance to get their money back with a profit.

However, nobody are suggesting a business arrangement where the third party profits from a successful case. I would be very surprised if supporting Simon Singh by sending him money could be construed as "champerty", which defined by dictionary.com as "a sharing in the proceeds of litigation by one who agrees with either the plaintiff or defendant to help promote it or carry it on."
Click to expand...

I agree. This article is talking about a 3rd party agreeing to support a party to a case financially in return for a portion of the proceeds to the case. That has nothing to do with donating money to a legal defense fund. In the US, and I am pretty sure this would hold true in the UK since it is a common law country, a donation from one party to another is not a contract as there is no reciprocity agreement.

I would go further and say I would be shocked if giving a donation to someone for their legal defense would open a person up to any liability whatsoever.
 
steenkh said:
That article is not really describing the situation that we are having.
Click to expand...


Note what it says about Hamilton v. Al Fayed, which was almost exactly the situation we are discussing:
As regards ‘pure’ funders (who do not seek any commercial gain), the courts have not imposed any liability for costs - see Hamilton v Al Fayed (2002).
Click to expand...

Here's the relevant judgment: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2001/389.html

Upheld on appeal: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/665.html

And a news report of the judgment: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/21/hamiltonvalfayed.jamiewilson

It also says (see the preceding sentence) that even for "professional" funders, "liability for the successful party’s costs should be limited to the amount of funding provided", so even for them it seems that there's no suggestion of unlimited liability.
 
Last edited:
If Simon did accept financial support from us all, he might well feel he'd be putting himself under some kind of moral obligation that he isn't keen to accept if he doesn't have to. The other issue is how many hundred thousand we think we would actually raise?
 
The latest from Edzard Ernst:
Chiropractic spinal manipulation for infant colic: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials

Some chiropractors claim that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for infant colic. This systematic review was aimed at evaluating the evidence for this claim. Four databases were searched and three randomised clinical trials met all the inclusion criteria. The totality of this evidence fails to demonstrate the effectiveness of this treatment. It is concluded that the above claim is not based on convincing data from rigorous clinical trials.

Int J Clin Pract. 2009 Sep;63(9):1272-4.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Click to expand...
 
Mojo said:
Note what it says about Hamilton v. Al Fayed, which was almost exactly the situation we are discussing:

Here's the relevant judgment: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2001/389.html

Upheld on appeal: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/665.html

And a news report of the judgment: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/21/hamiltonvalfayed.jamiewilson

It also says (see the preceding sentence) that even for "professional" funders, "liability for the successful party’s costs should be limited to the amount of funding provided", so even for them it seems that there's no suggestion of unlimited liability.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I stand, actually I lie down, corrected.
 
Have to say it: this discussion of possible liability incurred by supporting the defense of a party in a libel trial is one of the more interesting discussions I have encountered in JREF forum browsing. Lots of expertise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom