When do published statements about you or your business give rise to a claim, and what level of relief is the court likely to regard as proportionate?
Historically, the courts in England and Wales have been reluctant to interfere with a party’s decision to pursue proceedings where a recognised cause of action is made out. The focus has been on the legal merits of the claim itself. What is now emerging, however, is a shift in emphasis. The court is prepared to look beyond the formal structure of a claim and consider its purpose, its scale, and its practical effect on the opposing party.
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 is a wide ranging piece of legislation introduced to strengthen the UK’s response to economic crime, improve corporate transparency, reform Companies House, and introduce additional mechanisms aimed at tackling fraud, money laundering and abusive corporate practices.
The legislation is extensive, but from a litigation perspective one of its most significant developments is the introduction of statutory anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) provisions. These provisions were introduced in response to growing concern that litigation, particularly defamation proceedings, was increasingly being used to deter journalists, investigators, commentators and others from reporting on matters of public interest connected to economic crime.
Sections 194 and 195 of the Act establish the framework for dealing with these claims. Section 194 mandates that Civil Procedure Rules be updated to allow courts to strike out and dismiss Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) claims before trial.
The section introduces the following key mechanisms:
- The Dismissal Test: It requires courts to strike out a claim early if it is determined to be a SLAPP claim (as defined in Section 195) and the claimant fails to prove it is “more likely than not” that the claim would succeed at trial.
- Rule-Making Power: It imposes a statutory duty on the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to create specific rules to implement this early dismissal mechanism and enforce associated cost protections for defendants.
- Broader Scope: It grants the Lord Chancellor the power to extend these provisions to other relevant rules of court.
For the purposes of section 195, a claim will be a SLAPP where:
First, the claimant’s conduct has, or is intended to have, the effect of restraining the defendant’s exercise of freedom of speech. This focuses on the effect and purpose of the claim, not simply its legal form.
Second, the information in question must relate to economic crime, broadly defined to include material which the defendant reasonably believes evidences wrongdoing, or which could assist in investigating it.
Third, the disclosure of that information must be connected to the public interest in combating economic crime. This anchors the provision firmly in public interest reporting and commentary.
Fourth, and critically, the claimant’s behaviour must be abusive in nature, in the sense that it is intended to cause harm to the defendant beyond what would ordinarily be encountered in properly conducted litigation. That harm is defined broadly and includes harassment, distress, expense, inconvenience, or other forms of pressure.
The section then goes further by setting out how the court should assess whether conduct is “abusive”.
In doing so, the court is expressly directed to consider issues of proportionality and litigation conduct, including:
- Whether the claim represents a disproportionate reaction to the matters complained of, including whether costs are excessive relative to the remedy sought;
- Whether there is an imbalance of resources between the parties;
- and whether the claimant has engaged in procedural or tactical conduct, such as delay, excessive disclosure requests, aggressive correspondence, or failure to follow proper pre-action steps.
Importantly, the court is also required to disregard normal legal limitations on speech, such as defamation principles, when assessing whether the claim is restraining freedom of expression. This ensures the focus remains on the purpose and effect of the proceedings, rather than whether the claim is technically arguable.
Taken together, section 195 makes clear that the question is not simply whether a claim can be brought, but whether it is being used in a way that is disproportionate, strategically coercive, or designed to suppress lawful expression.
In broad terms, the legislation applies where:
- The claim relates to publication on a matter of public interest concerning economic crime;
- The claimant’s behaviour is intended to restrain or penalise such publication; and
- The conduct of the claimant is considered abusive.
The first major application of this framework came in 2026 in Kamal v Neidle [2026] EWHC 551 (KB)
In Kamal v Neidle, barrister Setu Kamal brought a defamation claim against tax commentator Dan Neidle and his organisation, Tax Policy Associates Ltd. Mr Neidle is the former Head of Tax at Clifford Chance and now publishes investigative tax commentary through Tax Policy Associates, a not-for-profit platform focused on tax policy and public interest reporting. The claim arose out of an article published on 26 February 2025 entitled “TikTok tax avoidance from Arka Wealth: why the Government and the Bar should act”, in which Mr Neidle criticised a tax avoidance structure promoted by Arka Wealth and associated with Mr Kamal.
The article examined claims that the structure could eliminate multiple forms of taxation, including corporation tax, income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax, and described those claims in robust terms, asserting that they were unsustainable and likely to expose users to significant tax liabilities. It also raised concerns about the professional and regulatory implications of promoting such a scheme and referred to matters relating to Mr Kamal’s prior professional history.
Proceedings were brought personally by Mr Kamal in libel and malicious falsehood, with damages said to be in the region of £8 million. The defendants were represented by solicitors instructed by the Good Law Project, with Mr Kamal appearing in person.
he claim arose out of a detailed online article published by Mr Dan Neidle on 26 February 2025 on the Tax Policy Associates website. The article, titled “TikTok tax avoidance from Arka Wealth: why the Government and the Bar should act”, examined a tax avoidance scheme promoted by a company called Arka Wealth and its alleged association with Mr Setu Kamal, a barrister practising in tax law.
The article was not limited to neutral reporting. It made a number of strongly worded assertions. It stated, in terms, that Arka Wealth’s claims that its structure could avoid “all corporate tax, income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax” were “nonsense”, and warned that users of the scheme were likely to incur “large up-front tax liabilities”. It further stated that “nobody should be going near this scheme” and criticised both the promoters and those said to be associated with it.
Importantly, the article went beyond criticism of the scheme itself and addressed Mr Kamal personally. It suggested that arguments he had advanced in previous litigation had been rejected by the courts, described aspects of those arguments as “hopeless”, and referred to his involvement in earlier proceedings which had led to a referral to the High Court under the Hamid jurisdiction. It also asserted that he had breached his duty to the court in those proceedings and referenced the subsequent involvement of the Bar Standards Board.
Mr Kamal took issue with these statements on a number of levels. His claim in libel and malicious falsehood was, in essence, that the article went beyond fair comment or opinion and made false statements of fact about him. In particular, he disputed the suggestion that he had been responsible for “failed tax avoidance”, denied that he had designed or advised on the scheme in the way alleged, and challenged the characterisation of his prior litigation conduct. He also contended that the article misrepresented the outcome of the Hamid proceedings, asserting that no final finding of professional misconduct had been made against him in the way suggested.
The claim was advanced at a very substantial level, with damages said to be in the region of £8 million, and was pursued personally by Mr Kamal against both Mr Neidle and his organisation as publishers of the article.
In dismissing the claim, the High Court characterised it in unusually strong terms. It described the claim as “spectacularly inflated”, identified elements of it as “unarguable”, and ultimately concluded that it was “oppressive”. The court further held that the proceedings were intended to, and did, have a chilling effect on Mr Neidle’s work, and amounted to an abuse of the court’s process.
What is particularly significant is the way in which the court reached that conclusion. The analysis did not stop at asking whether the words complained of were capable of being defamatory. Instead, the court examined the claim in its entirety, including the way in which it had been pleaded, the scale of the damages sought, and the underlying context of the publication.
For example, the court scrutinised the claimant’s attempt to characterise parts of the article as false statements of fact, including his assertion that it was “false and misleading” to suggest that a court had found he had breached his duty. That contention was rejected in clear terms, with the court noting that the Divisional Court had in fact expressly found that his failure to disclose relevant material amounted to a breach of duty . The attempt to plead otherwise was itself described as incapable of forming part of the proper disposal of the claim.
The court also examined the structure and presentation of the claim, including deficiencies in the pleading, the way publications were identified, and the attempt to isolate parts of the publication in a manner inconsistent with established defamation principles. These issues contributed to the conclusion that the claim was not being advanced in a conventional or proportionate way.
Taken together, the court’s findings reflect a broader shift in approach. The question was not simply whether Mr Kamal could articulate a claim in defamation, but whether the way in which that claim was being pursued was itself proper. The combination of an expansive claim, aggressive characterisation of the publication, and attempts to advance positions that were not sustainable on the underlying facts led the court to conclude that the proceedings had crossed the line.
The claim did not simply fail. It was struck out at an early stage, with summary judgment entered against the claimant, leaving him exposed to the defendants’ costs. The case is therefore a clear example of the financial and procedural risk now facing parties who pursue claims in a manner the court considers disproportionate.
This marks a material development for commercial litigants.
From a defensive perspective, it provides a framework within which claims that are excessive in scope or strategically framed may be challenged. Where proceedings go beyond what is reasonably required to protect a legitimate interest, there may be scope to argue that they amount to an abuse of process or fall within the statutory regime.
From an offensive perspective, it introduces a clear risk. There is nothing improper in advancing a claim firmly or in seeking to protect commercial or reputational interests. However, where a claim is framed in a way that is unnecessarily expansive, disproportionate in value, or structured so as to impose a significant burden on the opposing party beyond what is required to resolve the dispute, there is an increased likelihood that it will attract judicial scrutiny.
In practice, where a claim arises from published statements, the issue should remain the content and impact of that publication. However, it is not uncommon for the response to expand beyond that focus, with the claim itself becoming the source of pressure rather than a proportionate means of resolving the dispute.
The difficulty is that conduct which may appear justified at the time can later be assessed differently by the court. Claims that are overstated, allegations that are framed too widely, or strategies that rely heavily on the burden imposed by proceedings can contribute to a finding that the litigation has crossed the line.
There is also a reputational dimension. In disputes that intersect with public commentary or wider commercial relationships, the manner in which proceedings are pursued may itself become subject to scrutiny. The practical question for clients is not whether litigation can be used assertively, but how to do so in a way that remains proportionate and defensible.
Proportionality is central. The scope and value of a claim should reflect the issues in dispute. Inflated claims may create short-term advantage, but they also increase the risk of challenge.
Clarity is equally important. A claim that is focused and properly particularised is more likely to withstand scrutiny than one that appears to be lacking clear structure or appears tactical, punitive or retaliatory.
The tone and content of pre action correspondence should also be considered carefully. Early communications can shape the course of a dispute and may later be relied upon in assessing the conduct of the parties.
At GSP Law, our focus in disputes of this nature is not simply on whether a claim can be brought following publication, but whether it should be pursued in the form and at the level proposed. Where statements are made about our clients or their businesses, we will assess not only whether they are actionable, but what response is proportionate and likely to withstand judicial scrutiny.
In particular, we are acutely aware of the risks illustrated by cases such as Kamal v Neidle. Claims arising from published material can quickly become overextended, whether through inflated valuations, overly broad allegations, or an approach that seeks to exert pressure rather than resolve the underlying issue. That is precisely the type of conduct the courts are now scrutinising more closely.
Our approach is therefore measured but firm. We advance claims where justified, but ensure they are tightly framed, properly particularised, and proportionate to the publication in question. Equally, where our clients are on the receiving end of claims that appear excessive or strategically driven, we are well placed to challenge them robustly, including by reference to the developing statutory SLAPP framework.
For clients, the key point is this. A claim is not strengthened by its scale. It is strengthened by its credibility.
