Anti-SLAPP Law in the UK: A Detailed Guide to the ECCTA 2023 Provisions

What is a SLAPP?

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a legal action — most commonly in defamation, misuse of private information, harassment, or data protection — brought by a wealthy or powerful claimant not to secure a genuine legal remedy but primarily to silence, intimidate, or financially exhaust a journalist, researcher, or campaigner.

The key characteristic of a SLAPP is disproportionality. The claimed damages vastly exceed any realistic assessment of reputational harm. Legal proceedings may be brought simultaneously across multiple jurisdictions to multiply costs. Threats may arrive before publication — the aim being to prevent the story from appearing at all. Even where the journalist ultimately wins, the cost, time, and psychological burden of a contested legal action can deter future investigations and signal to other journalists that certain subjects are too dangerous to report on. This is the chilling effect.

SLAPPs have been brought against journalists covering financial misconduct, corruption, kleptocracy, environmental wrongdoing, and corporate malpractice. The claimants are typically individuals or entities with substantial resources and a strong interest in suppressing accountability journalism. They exploit the imbalance between their own legal budgets and those of the journalists or small outlets they target.

The ECCTA 2023 anti-SLAPP provisions

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023. Part 4 of the Act (sections 194–196) introduced the first specific anti-SLAPP provisions in UK primary legislation. These provisions apply to civil proceedings in England and Wales and are designed to address the use of litigation to suppress public-interest journalism and other communications about economic crime.

Section 194sets out the criteria for identifying a SLAPP claim. A claim falls within the anti-SLAPP provisions if it: (a) relates to a communication on a matter of public interest; (b) the communication concerns or is connected to economic crime (defined to include fraud, money laundering, bribery, corruption, sanctions evasion, and related offences); and (c) the claim has the hallmarks of conduct intended to restrain public participation — assessed by reference to factors including the disproportion between the claim and any legitimate remedy, the claimant's conduct, and the apparent purpose of the proceedings.

The scope of “economic crime” under the ECCTA is important: it is not unlimited. A SLAPP brought in response to journalism about, say, a politician's personal life that does not involve financial misconduct falls outside the current statutory definition. For SLAPPs outside economic crime subject matter, defendants must rely on existing common law abuse-of-process grounds or await further legislation.

Early dismissal mechanism (s.195 ECCTA)

Section 195 ECCTA 2023 creates a new procedural route for defendants who believe they are facing a SLAPP. A defendant may apply to the court at any stage of the proceedings for early dismissal of the claim. On such an application, the court must consider two questions: first, whether the claim falls within the section 194 definition of a SLAPP; and second, whether the claimant can demonstrate that the claim has a real prospect of success.

If the court determines that the claim is a SLAPP and the claimant cannot show a real prospect of success, the court must dismiss the claim. The burden of demonstrating a real prospect of success rests with the claimant, not the defendant — this is a significant shift from the default civil procedure position where it is for the defendant to demonstrate that the claim should be struck out.

The early dismissal mechanism is intended to reduce the resource drain on defendant journalists by allowing the court to terminate abusive proceedings at an early stage rather than requiring a full trial. The application can be made before the defendant has incurred the full costs of pleadings, disclosure, and witness evidence preparation. Combined with the cost consequences in section 196, this creates a meaningful procedural protection — provided the claim falls within the economic crime scope.

Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims

Before any defamation or media claim reaches court, the parties must comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims, which is issued by the judiciary and governs the steps both parties must take before commencing proceedings. The Protocol requires the claimant to send a detailed letter of claim setting out the specific statements complained of, the meaning alleged, and the legal basis of the claim. The defendant is given a period to respond.

For journalists facing a SLAPP, the Protocol can be a useful diagnostic tool. A claimant whose letter of claim is vague, fails to identify specific statements, or makes demands that are wildly disproportionate to the alleged harm may be signalling the SLAPP character of the threatened proceedings. Courts are entitled to take non-compliance with the Protocol into account when deciding costs, which means claimants who use the pre-action stage abusively may face costs consequences.

The Protocol intersects with the ECCTA anti-SLAPP provisions in that a well-documented pre-action exchange can generate the evidence of disproportionality and apparent SLAPP purpose that a defendant will need to support an early dismissal application under section 195. Journalists should preserve all pre-action correspondence carefully and share it with their legal advisers at the earliest opportunity.

Cost protection under ECCTA (s.196)

Section 196 ECCTA 2023provides for costs consequences where a court determines that a claim is a SLAPP under section 194. The provision allows the court to award costs against the claimant even if the defendant does not succeed on the merits of the underlying claim. This is a significant departure from the ordinary rule in civil litigation that costs follow the event — under the ordinary rule, a defendant who loses on the merits would typically bear both their own costs and the claimant's costs.

The costs-shifting provision under section 196 is designed to remove the financial deterrent that makes SLAPPs effective: the risk that even a winning defendant will be left with an unrecoverable costs bill. By allowing courts to impose costs on SLAPP claimants regardless of the ultimate outcome, the provision changes the calculus for claimants considering strategic litigation.

Separately from the ECCTA provisions, defendant journalists may be able to use conditional fee agreements (CFAs)— “no win, no fee” arrangements — with specialist media law firms. Under a CFA, the firm agrees to act on the basis that its fees are contingent on the outcome. Some media law firms offer CFAs for strong SLAPP defences. The NUJ legal defence fund and MLDI also provide funding routes for members and qualifying cases. Early legal advice is essential to assess which funding mechanism is available.

Limitations of the current regime

The ECCTA 2023 anti-SLAPP provisions represent a meaningful first step, but the current regime has significant limitations that journalists must understand.

• ›Commencement: As of June 2026, the Part 4 provisions require commencement orders to come fully into force. Verify the current commencement status at legislation.gov.uk before relying on the early dismissal procedure in active litigation.
• ›Scope limited to economic crime: The provisions only apply where the communication relates to economic crime. SLAPPs brought in response to non-financial public-interest journalism — covering environmental harm, health, politics, or other matters — fall outside the current statutory framework and must be resisted using existing common law grounds.
• ›Scotland and Northern Ireland: The ECCTA provisions apply in England and Wales. Scotland has its own defamation framework under the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 and separate civil procedure rules. Northern Ireland operates under a distinct legal system. Journalists working in or covering devolved jurisdictions should seek jurisdiction-specific advice.
• ›Non-litigation harassment: SLAPPs are not only fought in court. Claimants may use threatening solicitors' letters, subject access requests under data protection law deployed offensively to identify sources, and regulatory complaints to professional bodies as instruments of harassment that do not trigger anti-SLAPP court procedures. The current ECCTA provisions address only civil proceedings, not these collateral tactics.

A broader anti-SLAPP reform programme covering all subject areas was under active consideration by the UK Government following a 2022 call for evidence. Journalists and press freedom organisations should monitor legislative developments and engage with any further consultations.

What to do if you receive a SLAPP threat

If you receive a letter or communication that may be a SLAPP, take the following steps:

1. 1Do not respond to the letter yourself without legal advice — anything you say may be used in subsequent proceedings.
2. 2Instruct a specialist media law firm with experience of SLAPP cases. Do not use a generalist solicitor.
3. 3If you are an NUJ member, call the NUJ legal defence line immediately and report the threat as a potential SLAPP.
4. 4Contact the Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI) for pro bono or subsidised support in qualifying cases.
5. 5Contact Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Index on Censorship, or SLAPPS UK for advocacy support and to publicise the threat where appropriate.
6. 6Preserve all correspondence, evidence files, source material, and internal communications.
7. 7Assess with your lawyer whether the claim falls within the ECCTA 2023 economic crime scope — if so, consider an early dismissal application under section 195.
8. 8Document the disproportionality of the claim: the damages claimed, any realistic assessment of harm, and the apparent purpose of the proceedings.
9. 9Do not settle without legal advice. SLAPP settlements often include non-disclosure agreements designed to prevent you from reporting on the SLAPP itself.
10. 10Consider, with your legal adviser, whether to make the SLAPP threat public. Transparency about the existence of a SLAPP threat is itself a counter-measure — it removes the claimant's ability to operate in the shadows.

Frequently asked questions