This is excellent news from the Good Law Project:
The High Court has dismissed an £8m defamation claim brought against a journalist, branding it “spectacularly inflated” and intentionally “oppressive”.
The claim, brought by barrister Setu Kamal, related to an article by tax law expert Dan Neidle which criticised Kamal's involvement in a dodgy tax avoidance scheme.
After Kamal made a failed application for an injunction which the court said contained “a catalogue of procedural and substantive failings”, he issued an extraordinary claim against Dan for more than £8m.
I do not always agree with Dan Neidle, but I have no doubt that he was sued totally inappropriately on this occasion and was delighted that the Good Law Project joined in to support his defence.
This is the first occasion on which a libel claim has been brought down under the new SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws, but I still agree with this comment from the Good Law Project:
We're delighted we've won, but the law still needs reform to stop bad actors using the law to silence whistleblowers.
Libel law has too often been used to prevent the truth from being told, and that undermines our democracy.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Remember how Maxwell got away with what he did thanks to the libel laws?
Worth pointing out that UK Libel awards are not enforceable abroad such is the way they are viewed BUT you cannot access many websites hosted abroad from the UK because they dont want to be vulnerable to libel action being taken against them in the UK
Use a VPN. Which is quite revealing in terms of what those outside the UK can & cannot see.
I admire and support The Good Law project, although not always agreeing with Jo Maugham’s views on political matters. Great to see them achieving a headline win in this matter.
Carole Cadwalladr would certainly agree with you on that – bless her.
Carol Cadwalladr did us all a favour by her revelations exposing the links between high profile right wing figures and the machinations around Brexit.
She ended up with a million pound bill in court costs.
The wider issue is the power wielded by rich vested interests. Just the issue one would think a Labour govt, would tackle. Sadly it doesn’t seem so.
Anti-SLAPP laws? Ah, sections 194 and 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and the rules of court made under them which make it much easier to strike out SLAPP claims.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/56/part/5/crossheading/power-to-strike-out-certain-claims
An important factor is demonstrating poor conduct on the part of the claimant.
That was done here. I am not convinced that this provides a very good basis for law.
Dan Neidle is saying that defending himself and his organisation cost £146k.
I thought the Good Law Project worked pro bono so I can’t square this.
There would be barrister’s legal fees as well. They were not working pro bono.