Singh was taken to court for writing that by claiming that spine manipulation could cure childhood asthma and sleeping problems the organisation "happily promotes bogus treatments".
He fought the case in what was seen as a vital stand for free science journalism against the increasing trend for big health sector businesses to sue critics. A Court of Appeal ruling earlier this month allowed Singh to argue that his comments were opinion not fact when the full case was to be heard. That case will now not proceed.
Singh said that he was happy about the BCA's capitulation, but said that the fight for libel reform must go on.
"It's a relief but the time for celebration will be when for example Peter Wilmshurt's case is resolved, he's a consultant cardiologist being sued for libel. If he loses he'll be bankrupted," said Singh. "Somehow we need to make sure that scientists like this aren't being sued over and over again and ultimately the way to do that is to change the libel laws."
Singh told podcast OUT-LAW Radio last week that his and the BCA's costs had reached around £200,000 without even reaching the main part of the trial. He will now try to make the BCA pay for his costs.
"I will be arguing that the BCA should be paying all of the costs," said Singh. "This suit was brought by them, they had opportunities to walk away earlier on and they turned down those opportunities. The fact that it has got this far and this expensive is down to them."
Singh said, though, that he could still have to pay out £50,000 of his costs. "£50,000 out of pocket and a year of my career down the drain in order to defend an article that turned out to be right all along – that's another aspect of why our laws need to be changed," he said.
UK libel law has been fiercely criticised in recent years because it has been used by powerful companies or individuals from all over the world to take critics to court. The practice is seen as particularly damaging in the science and health spheres, where pharmaceutical companies, health supplements providers and trade bodies have all taken cases against experts over criticism they have published.
Defending libel cases in the UK is seen as so expensive, time-consuming and the law seen as so favourable to people who claim their reputation has been damaged that few people fight in the courts.
Singh told OUT-LAW Radio that he believed he had a duty to fight because he could afford it where many others could not.
"I wrote enough good books to have enough of a healthy bank account to be able to defend my article and I feel that if can defend my article then I really must defend it because it is a matter of free speech and it is a valid matter of public interest," he said. "I can do this just about, I can afford to do this but … 99 per cent other cases people would have said look, sorry I back down, tell me what you want to say and I'll apologise."
Justice Secretary Jack Straw unveiled libel law reform plans before the general election, but they were shelved until after the poll.
The two other main UK political parties have pledged their support for libel reform after the election, with all parties saying that better protection needs to be given to publishers and writers, particularly in the fields of science and academia.
The BCA said that the Court of Appeal's ruling that Singh was not making a factual allegation was what prompted it to abandon its case.
"On [the Court of Appeal's] interpretation, the article did not make any factual allegation against the BCA at all; it was no more than an expression of ‘honest opinion’ by Simon Singh," said a BCA statement. "While it still considers that the article was defamatory of the BCA, the decision provides Dr Singh with a defence such that the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw."
Singh said that his actual argument in the article had been vindicated. "My article stands. The BCA have removed the leaflet that made the claims I was complaining about," he said. "The practitioners have stopped making these claims, or many of them have stopped making these claims. One in four chiropractors are being investigated for allegedly misleading claims. There has been more scrutiny on chiropractic than ever before because they brought this suit forwards."
