Claudine Morgan, Hannah Gornall and Ellen Roberts write in New Law Journal about the implications of a landmark anti-SLAPP judgment

A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation.

Writing in New Law Journal this week, Claudine Morgan, Partner, Hannah Gornall, Associate, and Ellen Roberts, Associate, from our Dispute Resolution team, examine the High Court’s decision in Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd.

The court struck out a libel claim brought against tax commentator Dan Neidle and concluded it amounted to a statutory SLAPP under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. The judgment identifies conduct that may indicate a SLAPP, including inflated damages claims, demands for inappropriate remedies and attempts to uncover journalistic sources. Importantly, it confirms that reckless disregard for proper litigation standards may be enough, even without deliberate bad faith.

While hailed as a major step forward, the team argue significant gaps remain. The current regime applies only to economic crime cases, strengthening calls for broader protections against litigation designed to suppress public interest speech.

See a snippet of the piece below:

There is a strong case for extending the SLAPP framework to cover all claims that exhibit the hallmarks of abusive litigation.

[The] ECCTA 2023 is limited to claims connected with economic crime. Commentators, including Mr Neidle himself, have called for the regime to be extended to protect those facing SLAPP-style litigation in other contexts, including sexual violence survivors and environmental campaigners.

Read the full article in New Law Journal here (subscription required).