Need for broader protections highlighted as judge makes first SLAPP ruling under ECCTA

The High Court threw out claims for defamation and malicious falsehood by a tax barrister against writer and tax campaigner Dan Neidle in the first case to be rejected through anti-SLAPP laws.

These cases - strategic lawsuits against public participation – occur where wealthy people bring defamation cases to shut down publication of critical material.

But Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled that the suit, by tax law barrister Setu Kamal, met the criteria laid out in the 2023 Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act designed to stop such measures where the critical material relates to ‘economic crimes’, and represented a ‘statutory SLAPP’.

Kamal had brought the suit over a piece on Neidel’s Tax Policy Associates website which criticised a tax scheme promoted by a company Kamal was a partner with.

The defendants had argued that Kamal’s claim had been defectively pleaded, and that there was “no

realistic prospect” of his suit beating the honest opinion defence to the defamation claim.

The judge agreed that the malicious falsehood claim could not proceed, and that the libel case would not be able to overcome an honest opinion defence, before awarding summary judgment in Neidle’s favour. She also noted the case met the statutory criteria to be declared a SLAPP, but ruled no strike-out was necessary despite the statutory qualification as it had already been disposed of via the other rulings.
“It is, however, inescapable that, considered objectively, Mr Kamal’s conduct of the present proceedings has been a history of compliance failures,” she wrote in her judgment.

The law currently allows for anti-SLAPP protection for reporting on economic crimes.

But Emily Cox, a media law expert with Pinsent Masons, said while the ruling was important, it also underlined the need for broader speech protections in law.

"The judgment is noteworthy as this was the first SLAPP strike-out application under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023,” she explained.

“The judge notes the complexity of the current statutory framework, which is limited to economic crimes. In this instance, the defendant’s statements concerned tax avoidance schemes, which were an economic crime within the meaning of the Act.

“But there is little logic to a scheme which only protects speech about economic crimes. We understand there is revived political effort to table a private member’s bill to expand the scope of the SLAPP provisions beyond the ECCTA, which is welcome news."