Index on Censorship's Padraig Reidy, who was in court, writes:
"In a scathing rebuttal of Mr Justice Eady’s previous judgement in the case, Lord Justice Laws said Eady had risked swinging the balance of rights too far in favour of the right to reputation and against the right to free expression. Mr Justice Laws described Eady’s judgement, centred on Singh’s use of the word “bogus” in an article published by the Guardian newspaper, as 'legally erroneous'.
Laws also pointed out that Eady’s judgement had conflated two issues — the meaning of the phrases complained of, and the issue of whether the article was presented as fact or fair comment.
Laws said there was 'no question' of the 'good faith' of Singh in writing the article, as the matter was 'clearly in the public interest'."
The ruling means Singh will now be able to mount a full appeal against the British Chiropractic Association's libel suit.