header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 April 2010
Issue: 7413 / Categories: Case law
printer mail-detail

Law reports

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350, [2010] All ER (D) 08 (Apr)

Libel—Fair comment—Comment or fact

British Chiropractic Association v Singh  [2010] EWCA Civ 350, [2010] All ER (D) 08 (Apr)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Lord Judge CJ, Lord Neuberger MR, Sedley LJ, 1 Apr 2010

The Court of Appeal has clarified the approach to be taken to determining whether statements about scientific knowledge constitute expressions of opinion rather than fact, in the context of libel law.

Heather Rogers QC (instructed by Collyer Bristow) for the claimant. Adrienne Page QC and William McCormick (instructed by Bryan Cave Solicitors) for the defendant.

The claimant was a company limited by guarantee, which had as its objects the promotion and maintenance of standards for chiropractors. It issued proceedings for libel, contending that it had been defamed by the defendant, a scientist and author who in 2008 published an article in the Guardian newspaper stating that the claimant “claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll