In June, England and Wales moved closer to taking further legislative action on the use of vexatious lawsuits against journalists, campaigners and other public watchdogs. Two private members’ bills were introduced to the UK Parliament, both designed to tackle strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), which are used by individuals and companies to deter critical voices.

The legislative proposals – which, if passed, would apply only to England and Wales – were put forward a year after the UK government introduced an amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) that empowers courts in those two countries to strike out such claims before they go to trial.

The judge ultimately struck out the £8m defamation claim due to the claimant’s ‘unsatisfactory’ behaviour. However, the judge said she ‘would have exercised the power to strike out’ the ‘oppressive’ and ‘spectacularly inflated’ claim on account of it being a SLAPP, had it not been dismissed already on alternative grounds.

The case highlights the limited provisions that exist in legislation to keep costs from skyrocketing, says Nik Williams, Policy and Campaigns Officer at Index on Censorship. To have the claim struck out, ‘the defendant had to spend upwards of £146,000 and eight months of his life – that will be beyond the reach of the majority of people targeted with a SLAPP,’ says Williams, who also co-chairs the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which has been helping to build cross-party and cross-chamber support within Parliament to clamp down on this type of lawsuit.

The latest two bills – one put forward by former BBC executive Baroness Stowell of Beeston and the other by former culture secretary Sir John Whittingdale – appear to address these concerns by proposing to filter out cases at an early stage.

Elizabeth Morley, an officer of the IBA Media Law Committee, says an early dismissal mechanism will be a vital component of any future legislation targeting SLAPPs. ‘It will hopefully allow courts to dispose of abusive claims before defendants incur significant costs and delay, removing much of the leverage that makes SLAPPs effective as a tool of intimidation,’ says Morley, a partner at Level Law in London. ‘The key though will be in getting the threshold right: the mechanism should be robust enough to deter meritless claims while preserving access to justice’ where a claimant has legitimate cause to seek remedy through the courts.

Jonathan Price KC is an officer of the IBA Media Law Committee and a media and defamation expert at Doughty Street Chambers in London. He says it’s already possible for courts in England and Wales to dismiss unmeritorious claims early on, and that the ECCTA amendment enabled this for SLAPPs – albeit limited to economic crimes.

However, Price says that more change is needed to tackle the exorbitant costs associated with fighting defamation and privacy litigation claims in the UK. ‘The most sensible proposals – and I’m not sure that either private members’ bill deals with these – involve addressing the structural problems that allow SLAPPs to be so problematic in this jurisdiction: those are the costs and complexity of defamation and privacy litigation,’ he says. ‘That’s what causes the real problem and that’s what causes the chilling effect.’

The second reading of each bill is expected to take place after Parliament’s summer recess. David Lammy, the Lord Chancellor, has said he’s ‘determined’ to bring forward legislation before the next general election.

Williams believes that the latest bills are a renewed opportunity for the government to finally get legislation tackling SLAPPs right in England and Wales. ‘This is an important moment for MPs and peers to back these bills and focus on how we can ensure all protections are universal and easily accessible, while also ensuring everyone can access justice,’ he says.

A growing number of countries worldwide have already moved to stamp out SLAPPs. In 2024, the European Commission adopted the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive after concerns were raised about the increasing use of such lawsuits as an intimidation tool to silence journalists in Europe. The use of SLAPPs received particular scrutiny following the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017. Caruana Galizia had 47 SLAPPs pending against her at the time of her death.

Two years on from the Directive’s adoption and only a handful of EU Member States have transposed the new rules into their domestic legislation. In July the European Commission announced it had commenced infringement proceedings against 14 Member States due to delays in transposing the Directive.

Williams hopes that this sends ‘a strong and unmistakeable signal to all Member States dragging their feet,’ as the greater the number of countries that legislate on SLAPPs, the better. ‘We cannot hide behind the idea that SLAPPs are new, novel or unique,’ says Williams. ‘In fact, for every anti-SLAPP law passed, the evidence grows that progress [on tackling SLAPPs] can be made by a government committed to protecting free expression and the voices that make democracy possible.’

Header image: Jorm Sangsorn/Adobe Stock