header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 September 2025 / Sadie Whittam
Issue: 8129 / Categories: Features , Dispute resolution , Defamation , Libel , Fraud , Media , Human rights
printer mail-detail

SLAPPed shut?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
228911
Sadie Whittam considers the growing use of SLAPPs & the abuse of the litigation process
  • Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are abusive lawsuits, aimed at intimidating opponents both financially and psychologically to prevent them from speaking out about matters of public interest.
  • England and Wales is a particularly popular forum for SLAPP actions due to claimant-friendly defamation laws, procedural complexities and the ‘loser pays’ principle.
  • New anti-SLAPP provisions introduced in June 2025 do not go far enough, and further reform is needed to protect public interest speech.

What do four Russian oligarchs, a fossil fuel giant and a UK cosmetic surgery company have in common? They have all been labelled perpetrators of SLAPPs—also known as strategic lawsuits against public participation. Although there is no universally accepted definition of a SLAPP, these cases are essentially abusive lawsuits, where the main purpose is to intimidate one’s opponent both financially and psychologically to cow them into submission and prevent public criticism.

In a SLAPP, the litigation process itself

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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll