On 11 March 2026, Mrs Justice Collins Rice published her judgment in the application brought by tax transparency expert and lawyer, Dan Neidle to challenge the legal threat brought against him, and Tax Policy Associates, by barrister Setu Kamal. Neidle’s application is the first known use of the anti-SLAPP provisions contained in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) to strike out SLAPPs brought against reporting on economic crime.
The judgment was a clear victory for Dan Neidle and his public interest reporting, with the Judge stating “[t]he Defendants are in these circumstances entitled to a declaration that Mr Kamal’s claim is a statutory SLAPP.” This is the first known successful use of this provision and so establishes vital precedent as to the steps courts can take to protect reporting on economic crime. Throughout the judgment, the judge identifies a number of aspects of the claim and Kamal’s conduct that allowed her to come to this conclusion. For instance, she stated “[i]t is plain also that Mr Kamal intended to interfere with the Defendants’ journalism” and highlighted his use of “‘compelled speech’ and his attempts to compel revelation of the Defendants’ subscriber-base and journalistic sources, to have been disproportionate”. Kamal had valued his claim at £8 million due to allegedly losing a contract following Neidle’s article. The judge called this a “spectacularly inflated figure” and that “Mr Kamal had inflated the value of his claim, in his sworn particulars of claim, beyond anything he knew he had a realistic prospect of sustaining.”
The length, detail and complexity of this judgment should raise some important questions as to the efficacy of these provisions. Out of the 73-page judgment, over 30 are dedicated to the four different tests that have to be satisfied to secure anti-SLAPP protections. This was a victory Neidle was only able to secure through extensive argumentation and “substantial evidence”. Anti-SLAPP mechanisms are effective when they can discard SLAPPs at an early stage and prior to the accrual of significant legal costs. The more complex and costly a defence, the more likely the target is to step away from the protected speech. While Neidle was successful in defending his journalism it cost eight months of his life, an unnecessary distraction from his other investigative work and over £140,000 in legal costs. This aspect must not be overlooked in the analysis of this judgment, as Neidle’s defence will be beyond affordability for other targets, including freelancers, victims of crime, campaigners and social media users.
Further to this high cost threshold, the Coalition is unsure whether this will establish an accessible precedent for other SLAPP targets. Kamal did not provide any sworn evidence in response to Neidle’s application, leaving the court to infer his intentions through his actions. This is uncommon and as such it remains unclear as to how these provisions can protect targets of SLAPPs brought by those who may more strongly oppose applications under this legislation. The judgment referenced the “complexity of the present statutory regime” and when faced with such complexity we fear courts may default to allowing claims to progress instead of striking them out. This is why any universal anti-SLAPP law must be clear, accessible and simple.
The ECCTA provisions are limited by design and flawed by approach. As a result we reiterate our call for universal, accessible and robust anti-SLAPP protections. Not everyone is in Dan Neidle’s position to defend such a case – in terms of time and money, and the protections in place for reporting on economic crime. Those who find themselves targeted for speaking out in the public interest – on any subject matter – must be able to access justice and mount a defence. What we need is a robust but straightforward mechanism to protect public interest speech from SLAPPs.
The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition Co-chairs said:
“The success in this case proves that there is a need for a SLAPPs law, but also that what we have in place is not sufficient. This decision serves both to break down the nature and impact of SLAPPs and to underscore the urgency for a robust, comprehensive, and accessible anti-SLAPP law. As the court said, the application “illustrates… the complexity of the present statutory regime”. Over 38 pages, the judgment considers in detail four different tests that had to be satisfied – something that Dan Neidle was able to do only through extensive argumentation and ‘substantial evidence’.
It is important to emphasise that not everyone is in Dan’s position to defend such a case – both in terms of time and money. Those who find themselves targeted for speaking out in the public interest – on any subject matter – need to have the confidence that they can fully defend themselves, with a robust but straightforward mechanism in place to protect them from potential SLAPPs.”