The impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs)

Background

The acronym ‘SLAPP’ stands for ‘strategic litigation against public participation’. It refers to legal claims that are perceived to be brought in order to silence a critic by engaging them in costly litigation, rather than because of their legal merit. In a statement made in December 2023, the former Conservative Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Minister John Whittingale said of them:

SLAPPs are considered an abuse of the legal process, where the primary objective is to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent via improper and costly legal intervention.

Most claims identified as SLAPPs are for defamation, although other legal claims relating to the publication of information may also be relevant, such as privacy, copyright or data protection.

Such cases have been said to have a ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression, by deterring journalists and others from publishing criticism or allegations of wrongdoing with the threat of legal action.

This tactic may be particularly effective where the threatened litigation carries the risk of the loser paying very high costs to the winner, especially if the claimant has greater than the defendant.

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) introduced measures to allow the courts to identify and respond to litigation designed to suppress public interest speech. Sections 194 and 195 of the ECCTA entered into force on 18 June 2025. They include a statutory definition of a SLAPP and provide for procedural rules to strike out cases meeting the statutory definition before trial.

The issue has been the subject of a long-running campaign led by free speech organisations, media practitioners and parliamentarians.

Defamation claims Defamation law in England and Wales

The basis for a defamation claim in tort in relation to a published statement is that:

• the statement complained of referred to the claimant
• the statement was defamatory of them
• the defendant was responsible for the publication
• the statement was false

The definition of what constitutes a “defamatory” statement has been developed by the courts. A widely used definition is:

A statement should be taken to be defamatory if it would tend to lower [the claimant] in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or be likely to affect a person adversely in the estimation of reasonable people generally.

This definition is supplemented by the requirement in section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, which provides that a statement is not defamatory “unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant”.

If the grounds for a claim are met, the claimant would be entitled to recover damages unless the defendant can establish that they have a defence. Defences include truth; honest opinion; publication on a matter of public interest; and various forms of privileged publication, such as court and parliamentary proceedings.

The court in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB) at [222], in relation to a single libel in a newspaper, stated that damages “at the very top end of the level of seriousness, [would] only be likely to lead to an award of damages of up to £350,000”.

The winning party will generally be entitled to recover their legal costs from the losing party, and these can significantly exceed damages awards.

However, the rules governing the award of costs in defamation litigation are complex. There have been attempts by the government to limit recoverable costs through the abolition of recoverability of success fees, and to encourage the court to manage costs budgets by requiring all parties, except litigants in person, to file costs in advance.

Libel tourism

Defamation cases with a foreign element – where the defendant is in a different jurisdiction, or the publication occurred in a different jurisdiction – are sometimes referred to as ‘libel tourism’. The term reflects the concern that claimants may choose to litigate in England even when the link with the jurisdiction is tenuous, because the law is seen to be ‘claimant-friendly’ compared with other jurisdictions.

Parliament sought to address this by enacting section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013. This provides that legal action can only be brought against a defendant who is not domiciled in the UK if the court is satisfied that, of all the places in which the statement has been published, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate jurisdiction.

Scope of current anti-SLAPP measures

Following a call for evidence on SLAPPs published by the government in March 2022, the government committed to introduce measures to prevent litigation being used for improper reasons. A statutory definition of a SLAPP, and measures for early dismissal of SLAPP claims along with costs protections for defendants were introduced by ECCTA. There have also been amendments to the Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 which governs the case management powers of the civil courts to allow for strike out of claims meeting the statutory definition of a SLAPP.

Statutory definition

Section 195 ECCTA defines a SLAPP claim as proceedings intending to have the effect of restricting the exercise of the defendant’s right to freedom of speech as defined by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. The information the defendant would otherwise disclose must be related to the public interest in combating economic crime. The defendant must believe the behaviour or circumstances they would disclose are evidence of the commission of an economic crime, and the disclosure of the information would facilitate investigation into the allegations.

Under section 195, the behaviour of the claimant in issuing legal proceedings must be intended to cause the defendant:

harassment, alarm or distress, expense or any other harm or inconvenience beyond that ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation.

In determining whether the claimant’s behaviour is intended to have these effects, the court may take into account the proportionality of the claimant’s behaviour, including the costs of their litigation, the comparability of resources between claimant and potential defendants, and any relevant failures in compliance with court procedures. Relevant failures to comply with procedure include:

• choice of jurisdiction where proceedings have been issued
• use of strategies to slow litigation
• material sought through disclosure
• use of correspondence
• making or responding to offers to settle
• use of alternative dispute resolution

In order to bring the definition within the scope of ECCTA, the statutory definition of SLAPPs currently applies only to claims relating to economic crime and the public interest in combatting it.

A 2022 report by the Foreign Policy Centre says that at least 70% of cases referenced in a report about SLAPPs were connected to financial crime and corruption. The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition has criticised the restriction of the statutory definition to economic crime as it “creates inequality in the law for those subjected to SLAPPs that do not relate to economic crime and corruption.”

Powers of the court

Under the court may intervene if it determines that the claimant’s behaviour in issuing proceedings against the defendant meets the statutory definition of a SLAPP, and the claimant has failed to show that it is more likely than not that the claim would succeed at trial.

Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 has been amended to allow the court to determine under its own motion whether the definition of a SLAPP has been met, and, if it has been met, to allow for the court to strike out the claim. The defendant is not required to pay the claimant’s costs, unless there is misconduct by the defendant justifying a costs order.

Applying anti-SLAPP measures

The first case applying the anti-SLAPP measures in ECCTA is Kamal v Tax Policy Associates [2026] EWHC 551 (KB). In this case, Dan Neidle, a commentator on tax policy, published an online report alleging tax avoidance by a company working with a barrister called Setu Kamal.

Mr Kamal issued a defamation claim against Mr Neidle and his company, Tax Policy Associates. The defendants successfully applied for a declaration to strike out Mr Kamal’s claim under the traditional powers of the court to determine that the claim has no realistic prospect of success. However, the court also provided an analysis of whether Mr Kamal’s behaviour met the statutory definition of a SLAPP.

For the purposes of the anti-SLAPP measures in ECCTA, the court considered how to demonstrate intention to harass or cause expense or inconvenience for the defendant. The claimant’s conduct in issuing proceedings may be “reckless or wilful disregard for, or blindness to, the requirements and expectations of properly conducted litigation and the impact of their behaviour on the defendant” at [220].

The behaviour by Mr Kamal indicating a SLAPP included inflated claim valuations unsupported by the evidence, demands for impermissible remedies, injunction applications made without proper notice, failure to comply with pre-action protocols and attempts to access journalistic sources.

Morgan, Gornall and Roberts say in ‘The first step against SLAPPs’, published in the New Law Journal (requires subscription), that the judgment in Kamal highlights the “pressing need for clarity as to how the SLAPP early dismissal mechanism interacts with the existing procedural tools of summary judgment and strike out”. They also support the case for extending the SLAPP framework to cover all abusive litigation claims which are designed to suppress legitimate free expression.

Anti-SLAPP campaign

The Anti-SLAPP coalition is a working group formed in 2021 which has campaigned for changes to the law to address SLAPPs. It also supports individuals targeted by SLAPPs.

It is co-chaired by the Foreign Policy Centre, Index on Censorship and English PEN, and includes freedom of expression, whistleblowing and transparency organisations, as well as media lawyers and academics.

The coalition published a model anti-SLAPP Bill in November 2022.

There are also campaigns against SLAPPs in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority in England and Wales has warned solicitors and law firms that they must not facilitate or further abuse of the legal system, and must only take instructions in cases that are properly arguable. They have called for a “robust legislative solution that gives the courts more powers”.

Debate in Parliament Debate on lawfare and the UK court system

In January 2022, David Davies (Con) secured a debate in the House of Commons on ‘Lawfare and the UK Court System’. Mr Davies described the use of the justice system by those with “exceptionally deep pockets and exceptionally questionable ethics” to threaten and intimidate journalists and others as ‘lawfare’. He said that such claims, generally relating to defamation, privacy, data protection and harassment had a chilling effect meaning that some newspapers were reluctant to cover certain topics, such as the influence of Russian oligarchs. Further, he said that such cases could be dragged out for years before trial, inflicting severe financial and reputational damage on defendants.

Liam Byrne (Lab) also spoke in the debate, saying that the courts in England were being used to conduct “hybrid war”. He called for a change in the law to allow early dismissal of cases, a public figure defence, and for “sanctions” to be imposed on vexatious litigants.

There was cross-party agreement on the existence of a problem and the need for reform. The Minister, then Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, James Cartlidge, responded, noting action already taken by the government, and said that the need for further reform was under consideration.

Adjournment debate on lawfare

In an adjournment debate in June 2023 David Davies raised the issue again. He welcomed the government amendments to ECCTA (discussed above) but said that the issue would not end with reforms to defamation law. He suggested that data protection law was also used to bully people into silence.

He said that the government’s proposals could be strengthened by allowing the courts to make law firms involved in SLAPPs pay the costs to the public purse.

Debate on strategic lawsuits against public participation

In November 2024, Lloyd Hatton (Lab) secured a Backbench Business Committee debate on the subject of SLAPPs. He described legal threats as stifling debate around a wide range of issues in the public interest and significantly altering or preventing publication of information. He stated that “In most cases, the stories have been legally challenged long before they ever reach the courts.” Mr Hatton said that the use of the threat of litigation could often stop the publication of a story entirely, or derail investigations and result in self-censorship by journalists.

Mr Hatton welcomed the anti-SLAPP measures in ECCTA but called for further measures to extend the coverage of the protections beyond allegations of economic crime.

Nick Timothy (Con) described how SLAPPs made the law unbalanced and created advantages for the wealthy and incentives for the lawyers of claimants to issue claims.

Andy Slaughter (Lab) supported the extension of the regulation of SLAPPs beyond economic crime and highlighted that relatively limited reform has been achieved, despite the issue being debated many times.

There was cross-party agreement on the existence of a problem and the need for reform. The then Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, Heidi Alexander, responded by acknowledging the cross-party consensus for reform, but identified that SLAPP was a complex issue for the protection of the fundamental principles of free speech and justice. She said the government had no intention to legislate further but would monitor the implementation of the new anti-SLAPP measures and procedural rules introduced by ECCTA.

House of Lords debate on strategic lawsuits against public participation

In March 2025, Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) asked the government whether there were plans to introduce legislation to address SLAPPs.

Lord Cromwell (CB) stated that the ECCTA provisions on SLAPPs were intended “as a beachhead” and that a law covering sectors beyond economic crime had been expected to follow.

The Minister, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab), then Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, responded for the government that the focus was on the implementation of the measures in ECCTA and the government would take time to carefully consider the balance between access to justice and free speech.

Committee evidence sessions

Several parliamentary committees have held evidence sessions on SLAPPs including:

• The Foreign Affairs Committee, 15 March 2022
• The House of Lords Digital and Communications Committee, 31 March 2022 and 24 January 2023
• The Justice Committee, 10 May 2022
• The Joint Committee on Human Rights, 4 November 2022

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bills Private Member’s Bill (2023-24)

The Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, a private member’s bill, sponsored by Wayne David (Lab) having come in the top seven in the ballot for Private Members Bills, proceeded to the first debate of committee stage on 8 May 2024. Its purpose was to make provision about the misuse of litigation to suppress freedom of expression. At committee stage, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice, Mike Freer, spoke in support of the passage of the bill.

Its provisions were very similar to those in ECCTA, and the bill would have been repealed the ECCTA measures in favour of an anti-SLAPP response not restricted to the context of financial crime. The bill would only have applied to England and Wales.

The bill fell due to the prorogation of Parliament in July 2024.

Private Member’s Bill (2026)

Gregory Stafford (Con), presented a private member’s bill on 14 January 2025 entitled the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill. The provisions of this bill were similar to the private member’s bill introduced in 2023-24 by Wayne David (Lab).

The bill made no further progress after Parliament was prorogued on 29 April 2026.

Private Member’s Bill (2026)

The Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill has been introduced by Sir John Whittingdale (Con) as a private member’s bill. The bill is awaiting second reading, but has yet to be published.

This Bill is awaiting second reading.

House of Lords Private Member’s Bill (2026)

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con), introduced a private member’s bill into the House of Lords, the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, on 16 June 2026.

The bill would allow for the defendant to make an application to the court for early determination of proceedings issued against them if their published statement is in the public interest. The claimant’s proceedings would be temporarily stayed and would be dismissed if the claimant failed to show they were likely to succeed at trial.

The bill would balance the severity of the harm caused to the claimant by the publication, against the harm to the public interest of pursuing the litigation for defamation. The defendant’s application for early determination would not be granted if the harm caused by publication would outweigh the public interest in dismissing the application.

Costs would not be granted to the claimant if the application for early determination was successful, unless the court decided it was just and appropriate to make an award. If any part of the claim continued, the court would be able to cap costs recoverable by the claimant, if deemed just and appropriate.

This bill would repeal sections 194 and 195 of ECCTA. This bill will only apply to England and Wales.