WBF v. DR. JOHN ( LAW REPORT 2009)...................( Follow-up by Pun ) My report, I must admit, does take toilet humour to unbelievable new depths.......right down into the bowels of the earth in fact.......but this is because the appeal was heard by the following 3 judges: L.J. Royce ( Master of the Rolls ), L.J. Ballcock, and L. J. Cessel-Pitt. For convenience sake, I have decided only to publish their decisions, given that the trial itself lasted 17 days, despite every attempt to bring the whole business to a swift conclusion.

• L.J.Royce: " The plaintiff, representing bridge players at large, claimed they they were unfairly lampooned in Dr. John's case notes. They objected most strongly to the numerous false facts and innuendos, which they believed were wantonly mischievous. In their opinion, this "taking the piss" had been taken to unacceptable levels. No one is disputing the fact that Dr. John is a charlatan ( even the man himself agrees ), and that he did indeed expose the absurd and bizarre psychological traits of bridge players in a forthright way. The counsel for the plaintiffs, Sir W. C. Bowles, put forward the view that his clients had a water-tight case, and that the defamatory nature of these case notes were clearly subjecting bridge players to both ridicule and humiliation. Well, if these individuals recognised themselves in Dr. John's medical case notes, then there must have been a great deal of truth in what these articles were purporting. Therefore, since the truth has and always will be a defence to defamation, I must find for the defendant. "
• L.J. Ballcock ( looking rather flush ) : As both counsels well know, I am not one to take a back-seat role in these matters. Moreover, I am not one to fall between two stools. There is only one logical outcome to this case, which superbly highlights the conflict of two fundamental rights. The first one is our right to freedom of speech, a cornerstone of any free and democratic society. This however opposes our second one, which is the right of any individual to protect his reputation and feelings against unjust and untrue accusations, which all too often can often undermine one's standing and position in society. However, if a sane and rational person inadvertantly happened to stumble upon and read these case notes, only one conclusion could ever be reached. The Dr. John thing is a whole load-of-tongue-in-cheek rubbish......meaningless bull-shit which can not and should not be taken seriously. Taken at face value, the articles amounted to no more than ludicrous, but harmless, drivel. For different reasons, I concur with my learned friend.
• L.J. Cessel-Pitt : In lieu of normal protocol which requires me to be impartial, I do feel obliged to congratulate Dr. John on his excellent case notes. Contrary to what my colleague contends about their content, I believe a great deal about what Dr. John has to say about bridge players. Indeed, if he would be so kind as to send me a job lot of back issues ( I mean print-outs ) I will gladly reimburse him with a generous fee. However, getting back to this case, it seems to me that this ill-founded action has dragged on for far too long, and the paperwork produced by the plaintiffs have bogged down this hearing considerably. Dumping it all at the start would have been an act of blessed relief. As for the bridge players who are alleging defamation, I would like to say one thing : if the cap fits wear it. For may I remind them that defamation requires proof of false statements of fact.......a requirement which clearly excludes generalisations and opinions. The Dr. John case notes were not based on any particular individuals, being generalisations which contained small pockets of truth mixed in with great big dollops of speculative opinion. Furthermore, many of his articles referred to sad anonymous minorities within the bridge playing fraternity, but no one produced any examples which established concrete links between particular plaintiffs and particular case notes. Thankfully, my two colleagues have saved me from having to cast a deciding vote. However, having once been a member of a local bridge club, I appreciate what the defendant is saying, and what he is trying to achieve. I, therefore, also find in favour of the defendant.

( Footnote: Any excerpts, as well as back passages, from this trial's transcripts will soon be made available on-line, by going to www.parcelforce.lawreports@lav.uk )