header-logo header-logo

05 September 2025 / Sadie Whittam
Issue: 8129 / Categories: Features , Dispute resolution , Defamation , Libel , Fraud , Media , Human rights
printer mail-detail

SLAPPed shut?

228911
Sadie Whittam considers the growing use of SLAPPs & the abuse of the litigation process
  • Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are abusive lawsuits, aimed at intimidating opponents both financially and psychologically to prevent them from speaking out about matters of public interest.
  • England and Wales is a particularly popular forum for SLAPP actions due to claimant-friendly defamation laws, procedural complexities and the ‘loser pays’ principle.
  • New anti-SLAPP provisions introduced in June 2025 do not go far enough, and further reform is needed to protect public interest speech.

What do four Russian oligarchs, a fossil fuel giant and a UK cosmetic surgery company have in common? They have all been labelled perpetrators of SLAPPs—also known as strategic lawsuits against public participation. Although there is no universally accepted definition of a SLAPP, these cases are essentially abusive lawsuits, where the main purpose is to intimidate one’s opponent both financially and psychologically to cow them into submission and prevent public criticism.

In a SLAPP, the litigation process itself

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

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll