Clients depend on a legal environment where they can safely share information about wrongdoing. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, have been increasingly used to stifle that legal environment. SLAPPs are strategic tools deployed most often to compound corporate wrongdoing, through silencing legitimate criticism of such conduct.
In a groundbreaking judgment in March 2026, the English High Court made history by declaring for the first time that a legal claim was a statutory SLAPP.
Economic Crime and SLAPPs
In 2023, the Government introduced legislation specifically designed to curtail the use of SLAPPs in relation to public disclosures concerning economic crime. Following the entry into force of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA), the court was granted new powers to strike out a legal claim if it fell within the statutory definition of a SLAPP, and the Claimant had failed to show that it was more likely than not that the claim would succeed at trial.
Under s.195 of ECCTA, the requirements for a SLAPP are: (a) it is intended to have the effect of restraining a defendant’s freedom of speech; (b) it concerns disclosures related to economic crime; (c) the disclosures were made for a purpose related to the public interest in combating economic crime; and (d) any behaviour of the claimant in relation to these matters is intended to cause the defendant harassment, alarm, distress, expense, or any other harm or inconvenience.
This legislation was recently tested for the first time in the case of Kamal v Tax Policy Associates and Daniel Neidle.
Dan Neidle was formerly head of tax at Clifford Chance LLP, and is now an award-winning journalist and tax blogger. The dispute arose after Neidle published an article criticising a tax‑avoidance scheme promoted by Arka Wealth, which claimed to eliminate multiple forms of tax across Europe. The article alleged that Kamal, who was associated with the scheme, had advanced arguments previously rejected by the courts and that the scheme was “nonsense.” Kamal issued proceedings alleging libel and malicious falsehood, arguing that Neidle’s publication damaged his professional reputation and caused financial loss equating to £8 million.
Ultimately, Mrs Justice Collins Rice used the court’s well-established powers to strike out parts of Mr Kamal’s claim and give summary judgment against him on the basis that the 'meanings' Mr Kamal had pleaded as being defamatory had "no realistic prospect of being held by a court to be anything other than expressions of opinion.”
However, although the above decisions meant it was unnecessary for the court to decide the issue of whether to strike out the entire claim as a SLAPP, the judge nevertheless agreed to determine the Defendants’ application for a declaration of whether Kamal’s claim was indeed a SLAPP.
After a detailed consideration of the evidence, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled that the relevant tests under ECCTA for whether a claim was a SLAPP were met in this case. In particular, she held that most if not all claims in defamation or malicious falsehood would satisfy the requirement of intention to have the effect of restraining the defendant’s exercise of the right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, the judge concluded that at least some of the information in the article concerned economic crime, and that one of the purposes of the article was related to the public interest of combatting economic crime. Finally, having considered the history of the litigation, the court found that Kamal’s conduct satisfied the requirement of intention to cause harm to the Defendants in a number of respects. On this basis, the judge concluded that "I would have exercised the power to strike out Mr Kamal’s claim on the alternative basis that it was a SLAPP, had it not been unnecessary to do so."
The judgment illustrates “some of the complexity of the present statutory regime” and Mrs Justice Collins Rice was clear to highlight that her findings on intentionality were very specific to the circumstances of the case, namely that the litigation was conducted by a legal professional litigant in person who fell below the standards of properly conducted litigation.
While the judgment shows that the Courts are willing to enforce anti-SLAPP legislation to protect freedom of speech, it is as yet unclear whether the legislation is sufficient to properly shield ordinary people from abusive legal threats.
As Mrs Justice Collins Rice stated, the legislation as it stands is currently over-complicated and is likely only to be considered by the court after other applications have failed.
It is also important to appreciate the unusual circumstances of the case. The Claimant - whilst legally qualified - was representing himself, and the defendant had legal training and financial resources without which he admits "it would have been irrational to fight Kamal." The conduct of Kamal’s claim was also recognised by the court to have been poor. Even so, Neidle acknowledged that "It took six months, costs of about £146k, and an 85-page judgment, for me to have the claim dismissed." A better-resourced and represented corporate claimant may have proved a tougher opponent, and more capable of avoiding overt conduct which could be easily identified as satisfying the SLAPP criteria.
While the Kamal judgment is an important and encouraging milestone in the protection of victims of SLAPPs, it remains to be seen whether the legislation will adequately safeguard the freedom of speech of ordinary people who speak up about economic crime. In particular, individuals who lack the resources to fund litigation will inevitably find it more difficult to avail themselves of anti-SLAPP provisions, especially in cases involving corporate claimants where power imbalances are more pronounced.
Perhaps most crucially, Kamal brings into focus the fact that current anti-SLAPP provisions only lead to costs penalties, such as indemnity or adverse costs orders. While this may punish the claimant, it does little to remedy the harm suffered by the defendant. A more effective anti-SLAPP regime would go beyond costs sanctions and provide a mechanism for awarding damages, acknowledging that SLAPP targets are victims who should be compensated by those who bring abusive claims.
.jpg&w=256&q=75)
Copyright & permissions
.jpg&w=3840&q=60)
