Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are becoming an increasingly important issue within the UK legal sector. As scrutiny grows around the use of defamation, privacy, harassment, and data protection claims to suppress criticism or investigative reporting, solicitors are facing greater pressure to consider litigation conduct, reputational risk, and ethical obligations alongside legal strategy.
A SLAPP claim generally refers to proceedings brought primarily to intimidate, silence, or financially pressure journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners, or individuals involved in matters of public interest. Although such claims may rely on legitimate legal causes of action, critics argue that some are pursued strategically to discourage scrutiny rather than resolve genuine disputes.
Common features associated with alleged SLAPP litigation include aggressive pre-action correspondence, disproportionate legal costs, excessive disclosure requests, and tactics designed to create financial or emotional pressure on defendants.
Key UK Case Law Examples :
Banks v Cadwalladr [2023] EWCA Civ 219
The Court of Appeal considered comments made by journalist Carole Cadwalladr regarding businessman Arron Banks and alleged Russian links. The judgment placed strong emphasis on the public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 and the importance of protecting investigative journalism and political speech. The case became central to wider anti-SLAPP debates due to the scale and cost of the litigation.
Catherine Belton and Putin’s People
Defamation claims brought by Russian oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich, against journalist Catherine Belton and publishers following the release of Putin’s People intensified political concern about wealthy individuals using English courts to challenge investigative reporting. Although many claims were settled, the litigation became a major catalyst for anti-SLAPP reform discussions in Parliament.
The UK’s Evolving Anti-SLAPP Framework
The UK has already begun introducing anti-SLAPP measures through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act. The legislation allows courts to dismiss certain claims at an early stage where proceedings relate to economic crime reporting and appear intended to restrain public participation.
Although current protections remain limited, further reform is widely expected. The debate now extends beyond media law into broader discussions about civil litigation reform, claimant conduct, and ethical legal practice.
Why Solicitors Should Pay Attention
Anti-SLAPP reform affects more than specialist media lawyers. Commercial litigators, reputation management solicitors, in-house counsel, and regulatory practitioners may all encounter issues linked to alleged abusive litigation practices.
Law firms are facing increasing public and political scrutiny regarding both the clients they represent and the tactics used during litigation. Solicitors must balance their duties to clients with obligations to the court, professional conduct rules, and the wider administration of justice.
Risk management considerations now extend beyond the legal merits of a claim. Firms should assess the proportionality of correspondence, the public interest implications of proceedings, potential reputational fallout, and compliance with evolving regulatory expectations.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has also shown growing interest in conduct linked to intimidation, excessive pressure tactics, and attempts to suppress lawful reporting. As anti-SLAPP reform continues to develop, firms that monitor legislative changes and adapt their litigation practices accordingly are likely to be better positioned within an evolving legal and regulatory landscape.