Solicitor's "SLAPP" ruling overturned

In 2024, media lawyer Ashley Hurst, a partner at Osborne Clarke, was fined £50,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) and ordered to pay £260,000 in costs in connection with a ‘SLAPP’, shorthand for ‘Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation’. The government defines SLAPPs actions as “an abuse of the legal process, where the primary objective is to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent via improper means”. Claims of this type aim to discourage people from exercising rights to free speech, typically about matters of public concern or activism.

The SRA charged Mr Hurst with professional misconduct, alleging amongst other things a lack of integrity. Mr Hurst duly appeared before the SDT in December 2024. The SDT found that Hurst had improperly attempted to stop solicitor and tax commentator Dan Neidle from publishing or discussing correspondence concerning the tax affairs of his then-client, former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi. 

Last month, the High Court overturned the SDT's decision. Mrs Justice Collins Rice directed that the SRA must return the £260,000 costs award to Hurst, together with his appeal costs and original tribunal costs. Additionally, Hurst is entitled to recover the £50,000 fine initially paid. This is the second costs ruling in favour of a solicitor in a SLAPP-related claim this month. At the beginning of February, the SDT ordered the SRA to pay the costs of Carter-Ruck partner Claire Gill following the summary dismissal of the case against her. 

The SRA's efforts to tackle SLAPP-style behaviour remain an important part of protecting public interest discourse. However, SLAPPs is a relatively new legal construct, and there has been little judicial guidance until now. These recent outcomes provide useful guidance to legal practitioners on how the SLAPPs rules are applied in practice, as the courts appear to be shifting away from strict enforcement and are instead applying a more nuanced lens to what constitutes improper conduct. 

In particular, the outcome of these recent cases show there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach, and SLAPPS-style cases will be considered with reference to the specific circumstances of each individual case. That said, it remains critical that solicitors act in accordance with their professional obligations at all times, so as to ensure that they do not fall foul of the SLAPPs rules or become the subject of disciplinary action.