On 11 March 2026, the High Court delivered a significant judgment that has notable implications for “anti-SLAPP” litigation.
In Kamal v Tax Policy Associates and Daniel Neidle [2026] EWHC 551 (KB), Mrs Justice Collins Rice struck out a claim as a statutory SLAPP, making it the first successful use of the anti-SLAPP provisions under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
For businesses operating in commercial sectors, this decision sends a clear message that the courts are increasingly prepared to intervene where litigation is used as a tool of intimidation rather than a genuine means of resolving disputes.
There is now a clearer framework that gives organisations and individuals the ability to protect themselves against potentially abusive claims. Likewise “anti-SLAPP” can put in place additional hurdles for claimants pursuing genuine claims.
In this blog we will explore what SLAPP litigation is, who can be affected, and the decision in the Kamal v Tax Policy Associates and Daniel Neidle case.
What is SLAPP litigation?
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) is a descriptor of litigation typically arising in defamation, privacy or breach of confidence claims.
However, the true purpose can lie elsewhere. Rather than using litigation to resolve disputes, SLAPP litigation uses the threat of lengthy legal action and associated costs to pressure their opponents through financial and psychological strain.
SLAPP litigation may prevent matters of public interest being published – individuals running small blogs or local newspapers can often lack the resources to defend claims made against them.
SLAPPs therefore can have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly where the subject matter concerns issues of legitimate public interest.
In its 2022 response to evidence, the Government defined SLAPPs actions as “an abuse of the legal process, where the primary objective is to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent via improper means”. It further recognised that such claims are “not just an abuse to the law itself but of its accompanying procedure.”
In this context, solicitors are under a clear professional obligation not to engage in abusive or oppressive conduct. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) retains the power to investigate and take disciplinary action against offending firms that fall short of these standards, although enforcement in practice has so far been limited.
LAPP style tactics can affect business in a number of ways:
- Attempting to influence public perception of a company through costly legal threats
- Exerting pressure around whistleblowing or regulatory reporting
- Threatening publication of sensitive corporate information
Of course, not every litigation pursued by a well-funded individual or company is a SLAPP when legitimate issues are in dispute.
What the Government and the SRA are attempting to curtail is the use of litigation to support spurious claims that, if fully defended, are highly unlikely to proceed past an early stage. This promotes free speech and public debate of legitimate issues.
A turning point in the law
The introduction of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 was intended to address precisely this type of abuse in cases linked to economic crime.
Among its key features is a mechanism that enables judges to dismiss SLAPPs claims in this sector at an early stage.
In addition, the court is unable to award a defendant to pay a claimant’s costs where a SLAPP has been identified unless the defendant’s conduct otherwise justifies.
Until recently, the practical impact of these provisions remained uncertain. The Kamal decision provides the first clear demonstration that the legislation has real force. In striking out the claim, the Court concluded that the proceedings were not recognised as properly conducted litigation, bringing them squarely within the statutory definition of a SLAPP.
The Kamal case
The judgment has been heavily noted by legal journalists and critics of the litigation strategy. But why?
The case concerned an £8 million libel claim against Mr Neidle, a high-profile tax blogger and former magic circle firm partner, arising from an Article headlined ‘TikTok tax avoidance from Arka Wealth: why the Government and the Bar should act’. The claimant Mr Kamal, who had been referred to in the Article, filed a libel claim and an alternative claim for malicious falsehood against Tax Policy Associations Ltd and Mr Neidle.
In turn, the defendants brought an application for a ruling that would terminate Mr Kamal’s claim without trial. Amongst various arguments, it was asserted in defence that the proceeding amounted to a statutory SLAPP which should be struck out at an early stage.
In her judgment, Mrs Justice Collins Rice gave criticism on Mr Kamal’s conduct in the proceedings as they demonstrated a ‘history of compliance failures and behaviour ‘not recognisable as properly conducted litigation’. On that basis, she declared that the claim amounted to a statutory SLAPP under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and ordered that it be dismissed without proceeding to trial.
Why this decision matters?
The importance of this judgment lies not only in its outcome, but in the signal it sends. The court has shown a willingness to scrutinise the underlying purpose of a claim and to act decisively where that purpose is found to be improper. This represents a meaningful shift away from a system in which defendants were often required to endure lengthy and costly proceedings before obtaining relief. This limits the ability of claimants to use cost and delay as a tactical tool.
In this regard, it is notable that the court was not strictly required to assess whether the claim was a SLAPP, as it fell on other grounds. The defendants however asked the court to declare it was a SLAPP in any event (which was granted).
Agreeing with the defendants, the court noted that the £8 million claim was ‘spectacularly inflated’ and Mr Kamal ‘intended to interfere with the defendants’ journalism beyond his arguable entitlements as a defamation claimant.’ Pegging both the claim itself and its conduct as indicators of a SLAPP.
So how far has anti-SLAPP litigation really moved on?
Despite its significance, the Kamal case should be reviewed as a stepping stone rather than a complete solution. The current statutory framework remains relatively narrow in scope, focusing primarily on claims connected to economic crime. Areas such as privacy and data protection have yet to benefit from the same level of protection.
As a result, while the direction of travel is clear, the deterrent effect of anti-SLAPP measures is still evolving.
If you would like support, or you have any questions about the above, please get in touch with us here or contact Neil Williamson, or Colin Lambertus directly.
