On 20 October 2025, tax expert and lawyer, Dan Neidle filed an application to have a legal action against him thrown out in a landmark test of the anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA). The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition has been deeply concerned by the structural flaws in these provisions, and welcomes this opportunity to see them tested in a case that demonstrably merits their protection.
Neidle is being sued for defamation and malicious falsehood by the barrister, Setu Kamal based on Neidle’s reporting on a tax scheme widely promoted by Arka Wealth, which Neidle described as an “aggressive tax avoidance scheme which has no realistic prospect of success”. Neidle highlighted that Kamal was named as Arka Wealth’s “legal partner”, who Arka Wealth said would provide a legal opinion to each of their clients. Kamal said the references to him in the article were false and misleading and told the Coalition that no one had accessed the scheme through him directly or indirectly.
Kamal did not respond substantively to a right of reply issued by Neidle prior to publication. Instead he demanded access to Neidle’s and Tax Policy Associates’ subscriber base, which was refused. Responding to questions from the Coalition, Kamal did not dispute the absence of a response to the right of reply. He claimed to have communicated with Neidle in 2024, posted further relevant content to his social media account and offered to debate with Neidle.
Kamal told Neidle he had written to Google, Bing, Cyprus Data Protection Office and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to seek to have the article delisted. He continued to call for the piece to be removed, insisting that Neidle also publish his ICO complaint and undertake to pay 80% of any amounts which Kamal’s regular or historic clients would have paid Kamal but which he said did not because of Neidle’s publications. Also included was a requirement for Neidle to publish “clear and public confirmation of your sincere belief that I am the leading barrister in the field of taxation in the country” and agree never to make any “false or misleading references” to any person ever again. In a comment to the Coalition, Kamal confirmed that this requirement was made in the context of a private attempt to settle his complaint, which he says Neidle chose to publicise.
On 14 August 2025, Kamal applied for an interim injunction against Dan Neidle and Tax Policy Associates without notifying Neidle as is necessary. Dan Neidle was only made aware of the application, when he received an email from the High Court with a copy of an order dismissing the application due to failures by Kamal to comply with the relevant procedure and to meet the necessary tests for an interim injunction. In a response to the Coalition, Kamal confirmed his intentions to reapply for an interim injunction against Neidle. On 8 September, Kamal served Neidle with particulars of claim.
The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition believes this legal action bears the hallmarks of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or a SLAPP. Firstly, Neidle’s reporting as it relates to the conduct of financial institutions and taxation was clearly in the public interest and an act of public participation. Kamal’s flawed attempt to secure an injunction could have had a severe impact on Neidle’s free expression rights. This is why it is nearly impossible to secure a defamation injunction in the UK, yet Kamal pursued this in a manner that also broke court rules as he did not inform Neidle of the application. Further to this, the unparticularised damages Kamal requested, alongside the self-promotional and unenforceable nature of the proposed apology, made prior to any court ruling on the content in question, raise significant points of concern.
The ECCTA, which received Royal Assent in 2023, includes England and Wales’ first anti-SLAPP provisions, but is limited to claims relating to reporting on economic crime. So in this context, one of the issues that the court would need to determine is whether the article relates to economic crime. Beyond that specific limitation, the provision is anchored by a subjective test requiring the intention or motivations of the claimant to be determined for a SLAPP to be defined. This is likely going to be a time-intensive and costly enterprise that could open up satellite litigation, explicitly undermining the goal of establishing a cost-effective early dismissal process.
The Coalition will continue to monitor this application and stands in support of Neidle as he seeks to challenge this seemingly abusive legal action. Whatever happens with his application, we believe the provisions in ECCTA to be wholly inadequate to deal with the complexity and scale of the issue of SLAPPs in the UK and reiterate our call for a universal anti-SLAPP law that will level the playing field and protect everyone who speaks out in the public interest.