Decision marks first use of new anti-SLAPP regime introduced in 2023 legislation
The High Court has made the first declaration that a claim constitutes a statutory strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), applying the anti-SLAPP provisions introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
In Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd and Daniel Neidle, Mrs Justice Victoria Collins Rice ruled that defamation proceedings brought by tax barrister Setu Kamal met the statutory definition of a SLAPP. The court also granted summary judgment for the defendants and struck out the malicious falsehood claim.
The judge made clear that determining whether proceedings amount to a statutory SLAPP is not a matter of broad judicial discretion but depends on whether the statutory criteria set out in legislation are satisfied. On the facts of the case, she concluded that the defendants were entitled to a declaration that the claim fell within the statutory definition.
The decision represents the first judicial application of the anti-SLAPP framework introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which established a statutory test designed to identify and address litigation considered capable of suppressing scrutiny or public participation.
The claim arose from an article published by Tax Policy Associates, a campaign group founded by tax campaigner Dan Neidle. The article discussed tax arrangements involving a company called Arka Wealth and referred to Mr Kamal’s alleged involvement.
Mr Kamal brought proceedings for libel and malicious falsehood against Tax Policy Associates and Mr Neidle. The defendants responded with several procedural applications, including an application for summary judgment on the libel claim, strike-out of the malicious falsehood claim and a declaration that the proceedings constituted a statutory SLAPP.
The defendants argued that the claim had been defectively pleaded and that the malicious falsehood claim should be dismissed. They also submitted that the claimant had no realistic prospect of overcoming the defence of honest opinion available under defamation law.
Mrs Justice Collins Rice agreed that the malicious falsehood claim could not proceed and ordered that it be struck out. She also held that the claimant had no real prospect of defeating the defendants’ honest opinion defence in relation to the libel claim and therefore granted summary judgment.
Having considered the defendants’ additional application, the judge concluded that the statutory criteria for a SLAPP declaration were satisfied. However, she indicated that a separate strike-out under the statutory provisions was unnecessary because the claim had already been disposed of through the other rulings.
The judgment provides early guidance on how the courts may approach the statutory SLAPP regime, which was introduced to allow courts to identify and deal with certain types of claims at an early stage.
The High Court therefore granted summary judgment for the defendants on the defamation claim, struck out the malicious falsehood claim and issued the first declaration that proceedings constituted a statutory SLAPP under the 2023 Act.