header-logo header-logo

31 October 2025 / Paige Coulter
Issue: 8137 / Categories: Features , Commercial , Defamation , Libel , Media , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Tackling SLAPPs

234242
New legislation & SRA guidance mark a stronger stance on litigation that stifles perceived critics, writes Paige Coulter
  • SLAPPs appear to be on the rise, or at least are being identified more frequently in the UK.
  • To address them, ss 194 and 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 have come into force, and the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill will go to second reading later this year.
  • The Solicitors Regulation Authority has published further clarification on its approach to ensuring solicitors have acted properly and ethically with regard to SLAPPs.

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is the term used to describe a legal action taken with the purpose of burdening the defendant with the cost, stress and risk of defending or responding to the SLAPP, typically to dissuade discussion of matters of public interest by intimidating the named defendant(s) and creating a wider chilling effect on public discussion. SLAPPs typically take the form of defamation actions, where a powerful individual or organisation

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll