The defendant in the proceedings was the award-winning tax journalist, Daniel Neidle, who published an article in February 2025 through Tax Policy Associates Ltd in which he criticised tax avoidance schemes. The article named the claimant, Mr Setu Kamal, a barrister practising in tax law and stated that his arguments had been repeatedly rejected by the courts and called for government and regulatory action.

Mr Kamal brought claims in libel and malicious falsehood. He claimed that the article imputed that he was professionally involved in unlawful or discredited tax avoidance schemes, provided reckless, unethical or incompetent advice, posed a risk to clients and the public, and that disciplinary action should be taken against him. He sought damages of £8 million.

The defendants successfully applied for summary judgment on the basis that they could rely upon a defence of honest opinion and for a declaration that the proceedings amounted to a SLAPP.

The court found that all elements of the statutory definition of a SLAPP were satisfied:-

• the proceedings interfered with the defendants’ exercise of their right to freedom of expression;
• the article concerned economic crime because Mr Neidle had reason to suspect that ‘cheating the public revenue’ may have occurred; and
• the subject matter related to combating economic crime which was a matter in the public interest.

Of particular note was the Court’s consideration of Mr Kamal’s intention for bringing the proceedings and whether his motive was to cause the defendants harassment, expense or harm beyond that ordinarily experienced in properly conducted litigation.

The court concluded that Mr Kamal’s litigation conduct was not properly conducted litigation because he had (i) failed to comply with pre-action protocols; (ii) made an “urgent” injunction application without notifying the defendants; (iii) failed to plead his case properly; (iv) he had  sought to rely upon AI-generated ‘hallucinations’ in support of his claim; and (v) valued his claim at £8 million which could not be justified.

The court also found that the intentionality test was satisfied because of Mr Kamal’s behaviour, which included an attempt to gain access to the defendants’ subscriber base and journalistic sources through litigation procedures. In reaching its finding, the court emphasised that the intentionality test may be satisfied by reckless or wilful disregard for the need to conduct litigation properly.

Comment

SLAPPs have been the subject of public campaign for several years but, to date, legislative change has been limited to claims relating to economic crime. The Government has said that it recognised “an urgent need for legislation” to prevent SLAPPs in other types of claims after a private member’s bill to expand the legislative regime did not make it into the ‘wash-up’ before the last election. Despite the acknowledged urgency, the Government has not acted.

The SoA is a member of the Anti-SLAPP Coalition which is producing assets to encourage the Government to commit to introducing much needed further legislation in this area. If members would like to join the campaign, please contact the SoA’s Policy team at publicaffairs@societyofauthors.org