Singh isn't out of the woods yet. He had been granted permission to appeal the case. He still has to win the appeal.
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” (link).Seemingly, Singh's strategy must now be to convince the appeals court of his 'good faith' and that 'bogus' was not meant to deride, but to describe (again in good faith) that chiropractic treatments do not rise to the standards of effective medical treatment.
As for me, I'll take a Lord Justice Laws over a Mr. Justice Eady any day of the week.