Navigating the New Anti-SLAPP Regime: Key CPR Changes and Legal Implications

11 Sep

SLAPP[1] refers to legal action designed to intimidate, burden and ultimately silence people or organisations who speak out on matters of public interest, rather than to pursue legitimate claims.

Examples of SLAPP include threatening letters and court proceedings against those responsible for posting online reviews of businesses (including former employees).

Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (“CPR”) made pursuant to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (“the Act”)include new provisions relating to SLAPP.

These new provisions should have a marked impact on the way English courts handle SLAPP, in order to protect legitimate reporting on matters of public interest concerning economic crime. 

Background – the Act

The Act forms part of a wider package of UK legislation designed to combat economic crime and enhance corporate transparency.

It aims to “ensure that misconduct and improper use of the legal system to suppress legitimate reporting on matters of public interest related to combating economic crime will be prevented.”[2]

Employees who alert the authorities or media about corporate misconduct are a prime example of the type of disclosure sought to be protected.

The Act mandates that new civil procedure rules should be introduced to:

  1. allow for SLAPP claims to be struck out; and
  2. impose cost consequences for SLAPP claims that are not struck out or dismissed at an early stage.

Definition of SLAPP

Under section 195 of the Act, a claim is a SLAPP claim if all of the following criteria are met:

  1. Freedom of Speech Suppression:
    • The claimant’s behaviour either has or is intended to restrain the defendant’s right to freedom of expression as set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[3]
  2. Disclosure Related to Economic Crime:
    • “Economic crime” includes:
      • a broad range of statutory and common law offences relating to fraud, theft, tax, money laundering, corporate crime, terrorism financing, proceeds of crime and financial sanctions; and
      • attempts, conspiracies, or assistance to commit such offences.
  3. Public Interest Purpose:
    • The disclosure (or any part of it) is or would be made “for a purpose related to the public interest in combating economic crime”.[4]
  4. Claimant’s Harmful Intent:
    • Any of the claimant’s behaviour is intended to cause the defendant harassment, alarm, distress, expense or any other harm or inconvenience “beyond that ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation.[5]

The consequential amendments to the CPR

Pursuant to the Act, the following amendments to the CPR have been made:

  1. SLAPP claims may be struck out before trial (including of the court’s own motion) where the claimant fails to show that it is more likely than not that the claim would succeed at trial. This is now in CPR 3.4; and
  2. in respect of SLAPP claims, a court may not order a defendant to pay the claimant’s costs except where misconduct of the defendant in relation to the claim justifies it. This is now in CPR 44.2.

Where a SLAPP claim is struck out, the underlying cause (or causes) of action may remain intact to be pursued by the claimant in separate proceedings. Defendants applying for SLAPP claims to be struck out should therefore consider applying for consequential orders such as summary judgment in appropriate cases.

It remains to be seen whether a claimant who is found to have intended to cause a defendant harassment, alarm, distress, expense or any other harm or inconvenience beyond that ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation in one set of proceedings, will (following a successful strike out application by a defendant) be entitled to pursue the same claim in fresh proceedings which are not tainted by the same behaviour.     

The bottom line

Claimants pursuing remedies which may restrain a defendant’s right to freedom of expression on matters relating to economic crime should ensure that their conduct is proper and proportionate both prior to and during the course of court proceedings to avoid the claim being classified as SLAPP within the meaning of the Act.

Defendants should be aware of the court’s unique power to strike out a SLAPP claim, which may afford them an opportunity to seek an early dismissal of the claim without the usual risk of adverse costs consequences.

Parties to potential SLAPP claims should consider the new costs provisions which may apply to court proceedings brought by or against them. 


[1] SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation/Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

[2] Explanatory Notes to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, paragraph 62.

[3] https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_eng.

[4] Section 195(1)(c) of the Act.

[5] Section 195(1)(d) of the Act.