British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Lothian said:
I don't buy the BCA's claim tnat it was the lawyers fault and they only followed legal advice. In my experiene lawyers don't offer advice. Rather they offer options and chances of success. It was for the BCA to decide how to proceed. They choose to sue Simon not the Grauniad.
Click to expand...

Maybe the BCA didn't ask for options, but asked instead: "can we sue?"... That would also explain a lot.
 
Delscottio said:
Can someone, for the legally inept amonst us :o, spell it out what this ruling actually means?

Is Singh off the hook, or are further proceedings likely / still possible? Who picks up the legal bills etc.
Click to expand...

IANAL, but I think this appeal was only on the meaning of the words used in the article. The case might still go to court, although it's likely the BCA will withdraw at this point because it just got a lot harder for them. Someone correct me if I got it wrong.
 
BBC chimes in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm

The British Chiropractic Association said it was disappointed to lose the appeal but it was "not the end of the road".

BCA president Richard Brown said: "We are considering whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and subsequently proceed to trial.

"Our original argument remains that our reputation has been damaged. The BCA brought this claim only to uphold its good name and protect its reputation, honesty and integrity".
Click to expand...
 
Blue Wode said:
http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/BCA statement 1st April 2010.pdf
Click to expand...

"The same advice was that this was best achieved by directing the action against the author rather than the newspaper."

Wouldn't any normal person see that as being unpleasant and vindictive even if it is what the lawyer advised? It is an obvious tactic to go for the shallowest pockets if you're after revenge but the deepest pockets if you're after money. The legal attack on Simon personally is what has made their actions seem especially mean-spirited.
 
Am I correct in guessing that if the BCA chooses to withdraw at this point, Simon will still be left with his legal expenses? Are there any other consequences?

I'm actually hoping that they continue with this, and get properly smacked down. Either way, I think they've resoundly lost in the court of public opinion.
 
ArmillarySphere said:
Am I correct in guessing that if the BCA chooses to withdraw at this point, Simon will still be left with his legal expenses? Are there any other consequences?

I'm actually hoping that they continue with this, and get properly smacked down. Either way, I think they've resoundly lost in the court of public opinion.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. They sued him. The original case was a pre hearing on meaning. That decision was appealed. The full case is still to be heard. If the BCA pull out before the case is heard Simon should get back his fees. However I suspect it will be the court fees only (Barrister fees) not the full expense.
 
Just read the entire judgement and it is very interesting, pleased to read this:

...snip...

26.
What "evidence" signifies depends heavily on context. To a literalist, any primary fact – for example, that following chiropractic intervention a patient's condition improved – may be evidence of a secondary fact, here that chiropractic works. To anyone (and not only a scientist) concerned with the establishment of dependable generalisations about cause and effect, such primary information is as worthless as evidence of the secondary fact as its converse would be. The same may equally well be true of data considerably more complex than in the facile example we have given: whether it is or not is what scientific opinion is there to debate. If in the course of the debate the view is expressed that there is not a jot of evidence for one deduction or another, the natural meaning is that there is no worthwhile or reliable evidence for it. That is as much a value judgment as a contrary viewpoint would be.​

...snip...
Click to expand...
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
"The same advice was that this was best achieved by directing the action against the author rather than the newspaper."

Wouldn't any normal person see that as being unpleasant and vindictive even if it is what the lawyer advised? It is an obvious tactic to go for the shallowest pockets if you're after revenge but the deepest pockets if you're after money. The legal attack on Simon personally is what has made their actions seem especially mean-spirited.
Click to expand...

To me the judges seem to share that view:

...snip...

12.
By proceeding against Dr Singh, and not the Guardian, and by rejecting the offer made by the Guardian to publish an appropriate article refuting Dr Singh's contentions, or putting them in a proper prospective, the unhappy impression has been created that this is an endeavour by the BCA to silence one of its critics. Again, if that is where the current law of defamation takes us, we must apply it.​



...snip...
Click to expand...
 
Libel reform

Can someone please explain why MP's rejected 10% 'success fees'. Is it too small a punishment for losing a case or something else?


On Tuesday night, MPs rejected a libel reform proposal. The sticking point was the "no win, no fee" deals in libel cases that would reduce the "success fees" imposed on the losing side from 100% to 10% of costs. Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said he remains "hopeful" of a turnaround before the general election, but libel reform supporters are doubtful that the issue will be resolved in this parliament.

from The Guardian
 
For me, this is the vital paragraph:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/350.html

30. Once the allegation that there is "not a jot of evidence" to support the claims is properly characterised as a value judgment, the word "happily", even if synonymous with "knowingly", loses its sting. But we respectfully doubt whether the judge was justified in any event in attributing to the word any significance beyond, say, "blithely". The natural meaning of the passage, in other words, was not that the BCA was promoting what it knew to be bogus treatments but that it was promoting what Dr Singh contended were bogus treatments without regard to the want of reliable evidence of their efficacy – a meaning which takes one back to the assertion that there was not a jot of evidence for the BCA's claims.
Click to expand...


SS said that the BCA "happily" promoted "bogus" treatments that had "not a jot" of evidence. His following paragraph explained what he meant by "bogus" and "not a jot", so everything hung on the judges interpretation of the word "happily". They decided that it meant "blithely" rather than "knowingly".

And of course they decided that it was comment rather than fact.

A total win for SS :)
 
Groovy :)

And time for Eady finally to be put out to pasture, methinks.
 
leon_heller said:
It looks more like they are seeking advice as to whether it is worth pursuing the case still further, via the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Chiropractors have a lot to lose. The question is will they lose more by fighting this case and making even more people aware of their false claims.
 
Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner!

mbp said:
To me it seems the main purpose of this statement might be to convince their members the mess they're now finding themselves in should be blamed on the lawyers and not the BCA leadership.
Click to expand...

That is exactly how I read it. CYA.

As pointed out earlier, lawyers don't typically drive strategy. They merely lay out the paths available and their respective costs and benefits. Clients pick the path.

BTW, is anyone else worried that the BCA will spin this to mean that SS is allowed to say whatever, even though he couldn't prove it was true?
 
How can the BCA win? Possible answers
1. They appeal the high court decision and win.
2. Something happens to Simon so he no longer can fight.

Any others?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom