Simon Singh has become an unlikely poster boy for reform of the UK’s libel laws. On Thursday, in an important judgment on the defence of fair comment, the Court of Appeal made it considerably easier for him to defend a libel case being taken against him by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA). Singh is a science writer whose current concern is with the basis and efficacy of alternative treatments. He is the co-author (with Professor Edzard Ernst) of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Bantam Press, 2008; Amazon). On 19 April 2008, in a piece headlined Beware the spinal trap in the Guardian’s “Comment and Debate” page, he wrote:

The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

The BCA sued Singh, alleging that this passage was libellous. Aoife McLysaght presented a compelling critique (via YouTube) to Ignite Dublin #3 about this case. To my mind, this is the first of the many worrying aspects of the case. I have already blogged here about the undesirability of allowing bodies such as the BCA to sue in defamation at all; perhaps this case will serve to hasten the reform of this undesirable aspect of libel law.

As to the case itself, section 7 of the UK’s Defamation Act, 1996, allows for a preliminary hearing on the issue of whether impugned words are capable of a defamatory meaning. section 14 of Ireland’s Defamation Act, 2009 (also here) is to the same effect. In an application by the BCA under section (see British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2009] EWHC 1101 QB, which is not available online so far as I can see) Eady J held that the impugned passage contained assertions of fact (”not a jot of evidence”; “bogus”) which would require to be proven true and not merely opinions which could amount to fair comment. This left Singh in an impossible position in seeking to defend the BCA’s libel claim. And things got worse, because Eady J refused Singh leave to appeal. However, the Court of Appeal granted leave, (see [2009] EWCA Civ 1154 (14 October 2009)) and last Thursday the Court (consisting of Lord Chief Justice Judge, Lord Neuberger MR, and Sedley LJ) allowed the appeal itself (see [2010] EWCA Civ 350 (01 April 2010); for some coverage see BBC | the Guardian at various stages over the last few days, especially: here, here and here | Irish Times | TimesOnline ). Read the rest of this entry »

The School of Law, Trinity College Dublin, Pump Court Tax Chambers and One Essex Court are delighted to announce a conference on

Restitution of Overpaid Tax

which will take place in Merton College Oxford on the weekend of Friday 9 and Saturday 10 July 2010.

In Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1993] AC 70 (HL), the House of Lords held that taxes unlawfully exacted by the Revenue are recoverable by the taxpayer as of right. The recent decisions of the Court of Appeal in Test Claimants In the Franked Investment Group Litigation v Commissioners of the Inland Revenue [2010] EWCA Civ 103 (23 February 2010) and FJ Chalke Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2010] EWCA Civ 313 (25 March 2010) demonstrate that many fundamental elements of the Woolwich principle still remain to be resolved. Eminent contributors will explore the general issue of restitution of overpaid taxes from various perspectives – for example, the tax background, various private law claims, alternative public law approaches, defences, and remedies – and in various jurisdictions (such as Australia, Canada, the EU, Germany, Ireland, and New Zealand, as well as the UK).

Details Programme | Contributors | Abstracts | Venue | Bookings | Contact | Updates