First statutory SLAPP judgment handed down
On 11 March 2026, the High Court determined, for the first time, that a claim was a statutory “SLAPP”, otherwise known as a “strategic lawsuit against public participation” under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (“the ECCTA”).
The judge (Collins Rice J) granted summary judgment in favour of the Defendant, journalist Dan Neidle and his company (Tax Policy Associates Ltd) in a defamation and malicious falsehood action brought by barrister Setu Kamal, stating “The Defendants are…entitled to a declaration that Mr Kamal’s claim is a statutory SLAPP”.
What is a SLAPP?
A SLAPP is an action in which a claimant sues a defendant, not necessarily with the intention of winning the claim, but instead to curtail freedom of expression and to cause a defendant harassment, additional time or money, or other harm outside the scope of properly conducted litigation. The statutory definition is set out in Section 194 of the ECCTA.
SLAPP: why intention matters
The judge, Collins Rice J, stated in this case:
“The SLAPP test is all about how litigation is conducted. It is a test of several parts, but with two striking features. The first is that it is made to depend on the intention of the claimant – it is a subjective test. The second is that that intention must relate to the causing to the defendant of various adversities or inconvenience ‘beyond that ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation’”
Mr Kamal, a barrister, made no positive statements as to his intention in bringing the action. The Judge therefore determined his intention based on the conduct of the parties, in particular the pre-action correspondence and the valuation of the claim (which was over £8 million).
Although she noted a “history of compliance failures” on Mr Kamal’s part, these actions did not necessarily speak to Mr Kamal’s specific intention, which had to be considered in the wider context of his pre-action conduct and unfamiliarity with defamation law. Ultimately, Collins Rice J was satisfied that Mr Kamal’s behaviour “was intended to, and did, have a chilling effect on the Defendant’s journalism beyond that ordinarily encountered in properly conducted libel litigation.”
As a tax lawyer and acting in person in a defamation action, it appears Mr Kamal was operating outside his usual area of expertise. It begs the question whether the outcome and costs consequences for Mr Kamal may have been different had he instructed specialist defamation lawyers.
How Hamlins can help
Our Reputation and Privacy team handles cases involving print and digital media and is instructed in precedent-setting defamation and privacy cases. The team has established itself as the advisor of choice for public and private figures seeking advice in relation to defamation, reputation management, pre and post publication libel and privacy law. Please get in touch to learn more.