SLAPP happy?

21 March 2025 / Clare Hughes-Williams , Megan Hill

Issue: 8109 / Categories: Features , Profession , Dispute resolution

Where to draw the line between aggressive litigation tactics & misconduct? Clare Hughes-Williams & Megan Hill explore a recent tribunal decision

Sets out the facts of Solicitors Regulation Authority v Hurst, which considered the publication of Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs.
Highlights the need for meaningful supervision of junior lawyers as the distinction between working hard for a client and committing misconduct can be difficult to identify.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation—or SLAPPs, as they are often referred to—remain a hot topic for law firms, given the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA’s) continuing focus on addressing what it sees as the abusive litigation tactics deployed by some litigators.

In what was widely reported to be the first prosecution on this issue, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) handed down its decision in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Hurst (Case no 12612/2024) on 20 December 2024.

The case

Mr Hurst had been instructed by former minister, Nadhim Zahawi (pictured), to consider the legal position in relation to articles that had been published about his

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SLAPP happy?

Where to draw the line between aggressive litigation tactics & misconduct? Clare Hughes-Williams & Megan Hill explore a recent tribunal decision

Sets out the facts of Solicitors Regulation Authority v Hurst, which considered the publication of Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs.
Highlights the need for meaningful supervision of junior lawyers as the distinction between working hard for a client and committing misconduct can be difficult to identify.

The case

Mr Hurst had been instructed by former minister, Nadhim Zahawi (pictured), to consider the legal position in relation to articles that had been published about his

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Alarm bells over Mazur

The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week

NLJ this week: Jury trial & a constitutional illusion

Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition

NLJ this week: The rise—and risks—of going private

Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Human rights disputes push courts to redefine their role

The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Debarment orders—shortcut or minefield?

In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof

Error message

SLAPP happy?

The case

The case

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Morae—Carla Mendy

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du