On 4 July 2025, one year to the day since the last general election, Conservative MP Greg Stafford’s SLAPP Bill came up for its second reading in the House of Commons. The House ran short on time to debate it (unsurprisingly given it was eighth on the list of bills up for consideration in that session) and its second reading has been postponed unceremoniously to 5 December 2025.
Stafford’s Bill, if successful, would expand the scope of SLAPP legislation in this jurisdiction beyond that currently provided for in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) and create a more holistic anti-SLAPPs regime. Yet Stafford’s iteration of the SLAPP Bill has received little public attention. This may be because it is a presentation bill and is therefore unlikely ever to become law (more on this below). But it is nevertheless important as the latest in long-running efforts by media interest groups, MPs and the SRA to combat SLAPPs with varying levels of enthusiasm and success – and it is against that context that its future should be considered.
The ECCTA – a step in the right direction
SLAPPs were first prioritised on the political agenda in July 2022 when, following a Ministry of Justice consultation and against the backdrop of the war raging in Ukraine, Dominic Raab (then Deputy Prime Minister) committed to “[move] decisively to stamp out SLAPPs” in order to “uphold our fundamental liberties of free speech and a free press, end the abuse of our courts and defend to the hilt those who bravely speak out in the public interest”. The consultation had identified specific concerns with SLAPPs being made by “oligarchs and corporations who bankroll the Putin regime.”
An early dismissal mechanism for SLAPPs was provided for relatively quickly thereafter, in what is now sections 194 and 195 of the ECCTA. At a high level, that mechanism – which is fully in force as of 18 June 2025 (by Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Commencement No.5) Regulations 2025 (SI 2025/718)) after its implementation under CPR Rules 3.4 and 44.2 – grants the Court the power to strike out cases which meet the ECCTA’s definition of a SLAPP where the Claimant cannot show that it is more likely than not the claim would succeed at trial.
The narrow scope of the ECCTA’s anti-SLAPP provisions, which only combat SLAPPs relating to economic crimes as defined in section 193(1) of the ECCTA, make sense when considered against the context in which they were introduced. In 2022, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine prompted the Government to crack down on dirty money in the UK, including by the introduction of the ECCTA Bill in September 2022. The anti-SLAPP provisions were introduced as amendments to the Bill after it was first proposed, tackling SLAPPS in a way that aligned with the Government’s political priorities at that time.
Shortly thereafter, in November 2022, the SRA published its first Warning Notice in relation to SLAPPs, threatening disciplinary action against solicitors who engaged in courses of action that could be defined as SLAPPs.
SLAPP Bill: Round 1
Although the anti-SLAPP provisions in the ECCTA were a step in the right direction, concerns about its narrow scope resulted in cross-party support for the first iteration of the SLAPP Bill introduced by then Labour MP Wayne David in December 2023.
David was successful in the final private member’s bill ballot of the last government, and chose to put forward his SLAPPs Bill because, as he explained during the bill’s second reading, SLAPPs take many forms and were in need of legislation that tackled the issue “in a holistic and rounded sense” whilst keeping the approach underpinning the ECCTA largely intact.
Both Labour and Conservative MPs spoke in favour of the principle behind the SLAPP Bill and the protection of free speech which it promoted, and it seemed to be gaining political momentum. However, it was not part of the washup of parliamentary business before the 4 July 2024 General Election and so ultimately failed.
2024 General Election
Ahead of the General Election, shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy indicated that eliminating SLAPPs would form a key part of Labour’s strategy to tackle dirty money in the UK and expressed a desire to work with the Law Commission and the Law Society to tackle the issue. This did not suggest an immediate focus on a more comprehensive anti-SLAPP regime than that already provided for under the ECCTA. SLAPPs were not then mentioned in either Labour’s manifesto or the King’s Speech, but Labour’s Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede confirmed during a Lords debate on 24 July 2024 that the Government was “carefully considering options to tackle SLAPPs comprehensively” and was establishing working parties to address the issue, acknowledging that there was an “urgent need for reform”. On 15 October 2024, the Foreign Policy Centre held a packed-out Parliamentary reception to discuss the need for a standalone UK anti-SLAPP law. The House of Lords Communication and Digital Select Committee, in its 25 November 2024 Future of News Report, also called on the Government to expedite the process of enacting more comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation. There were, therefore, promising indications that a desire to pursue a more comprehensive regime did remain on the agenda.
The SRA had also indicated its support for a more generalised direction of travel when it issued a renewed Warning Notice on SLAPPs on 31 May 2024 which noted that its regulatory powers were “not limited to economic crime or contingent on a claim being declared a SLAPP claim under [ECCTA]”.
SLAPP Bill: Round 2
Gregory Stafford MP introduced his SLAPP Bill, which essentially reincarnates Sir Wayne David’s earlier version, in October 2024. This version is, however, a presentation bill which, in the words of the MPs’ Guide to Procedure, is “unlikely to become law, but is a way of drawing attention to an issue that requires a change in a law”. As a presentation bill, Stafford’s SLAPP Bill is essentially so far down the order of priority in which new private members bills will be considered that it is unlikely it will ever be allocated time for debate, let alone get past its second reading, within the current Parliamentary session. That said, the fact that Stafford is choosing to champion a SLAPP Bill is important in ensuring that it remains on the political agenda.
So, where does that leave us?
As matters stand, we have active anti-economic SLAPP provisions (albeit that they are yet to be tested) and, whilst they are a start, they fall short of providing comprehensive protection to those reporting on matters of public interest and we have no prospect of such protection being provided in the near future.
The SRA has taken a more comprehensive view of SLAPPs, but there is only so much they can do alone. That is illustrated by the criticism levelled at the SRA in March of this year for failing to take action against Discreet Law for acting in what has been described as a “textbook” SLAPP. Ultimately, the SRA’s investigations concluded that Discrete Law had no reason to be aware that instructions received from their client were false and that it was the client, and not the law firm, who was engaged in SLAPP-worthy behaviour. As long as it is satisfied that lawyers are behaving appropriately, there is nothing the SRA can do to reprimand the behaviour of their clients. It is for this reason that the SRA chief executive Paul Philip has called for legislative intervention.
Ultimately, whilst the two private member SLAPP Bills to date have helped to keep SLAPPs on the government agenda and promote discussion, nothing will be achieved without ministerial support. As the Future of News Report observed: “what is missing now is political will”. The question for publishers and journalists in the firing line from SLAPPs is therefore: how can political will to tackle the issue more broadly be reinvigorated?
One answer to that question may lie in the fact that most public commentary about SLAPPs discusses them in the context of protecting media freedoms, which is at the core of the issue but is far from the whole story. Gregory Stafford MP was alive to this when he introduced his SLAPPs Bill, announcing in a Facebook post that “there are large companies out there and rich individuals who are using legislation and the law to stop whistleblowers, campaigners, journalists, politicians and ordinary people from raising concerns about their organisations”. Sir Wayne David made similar observations in relation to his own version of the bill, referring to stories of patients who have left negative reviews for botched plastic surgeries being issued with a SLAPP by the surgeons and of tenants who have spoken out about uninhabitable housing being issued with SLAPP claims by their landlords. Apsana Begum MP, when debating the first Bill, also referred to the broadening of the scope of anti-SLAPP legislation to prevent powerful men using that power to silence female victims of abuse. If the debate can be framed even more strongly in this way – around the protection of not just press freedoms, but the freedom of speech of the public at large – it may gain the level of political traction required to make free-standing anti-SLAPPs legislation finally a reality.
Emily Cox is a Partner and Caroline Henzell a Senior Associate at Pinsent Masons LLP
Leave a Reply