header-logo header-logo

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

SLAPPed shut?

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll