The bill mandates that the Civil Procedure Rules be redrafted so courts can strike out claims before trial when those claims amount to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP). It sets a three-part statutory definition of a SLAPP claim, instructs rule-makers on permissible procedures for pre-trial determinations (including presumptions and evidence-testing), and restricts courts from ordering defendants to pay claimants’ costs except where defendant misconduct makes such an order justified.
The measure also gives the Lord Chancellor power to extend the same requirements to other rules of court by regulation, removes certain strike-out provisions from the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and limits the Act’s geographic reach to England and Wales. For practitioners this bill reshapes early case-management, raises evidentiary and procedure questions for judges, and changes the cost calculus of strategic litigation targeting speech on matters of public interest.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires Civil Procedure Rules to give courts a statutory mechanism to strike out SLAPP claims pre-trial if the claimant cannot show it is more likely than not to succeed. It prescribes that courts can decide SLAPP issues of their own motion and permits rules that rely on specified evidential approaches, including presumptions.
Who It Affects
Litigants in defamation, privacy and regulatory-related suits involving public-interest expression; solicitors and firms handling claimant-side litigation; judges and court administrators implementing new pre-trial procedures; and the Lord Chancellor’s office if regulations extend the scheme to other tribunals.
Why It Matters
The bill changes the incentives that drive strategic suits—reducing the power of expensive, merit-light litigation to chill speech—and alters cost exposure for defendants. It also puts immediate pressure on the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and courts to adopt workable procedural mechanics and on claimants to decide forum and strategy with more caution.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a statutory requirement that the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) must enable a court to strike out a claim before trial when the claim meets the statutory test for a SLAPP and the claimant cannot show it is more likely than not to succeed. That shifts the focus to an early merits check targeted specifically at litigation that suppresses expression on matters of public interest.
Section 2 gives the statutory definition of a SLAPP claim. A claim qualifies if it concerns expression (including electronic) disclosing information about a matter of public interest, if the claimant’s conduct indicates an intent to restrain the defendant’s exercise of freedom of speech, and if the claimant’s conduct is intended to cause the defendant harm or inconvenience beyond what properly conducted litigation would normally produce.
The clause lists examples of harm (expense, harassment, alarm, distress) and tells courts to ignore legal limits on speech (for instance, whether the expression might be defamatory) when determining the ‘restraint’ limb.The bill authorises that CPR provisions may specify how courts evaluate evidence in SLAPP challenges—what material may be considered and how it should be tested—and allows rules to create presumptions of fact. It also requires rules to permit the court to raise and decide the SLAPP question of its own motion.
On costs, the CPR must provide that defendants cannot be ordered to pay the claimant’s costs in SLAPP claims unless the court finds defendant misconduct that justifies such an order.Beyond the CPR, the Lord Chancellor may, by statutory instrument subject to annulment, apply the same requirements to other court or tribunal practice rules. The bill makes a narrow consequential change to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 by removing its strike-out provisions, confines the Act to England and Wales, and provides a two-month commencement period from enactment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Civil Procedure Rules to allow a court to strike out a claim pre-trial where the court finds the claim is a SLAPP and the claimant has failed to show it is more likely than not to succeed at trial.
A SLAPP claim is defined by three statutory limbs: (1) it concerns expression about a matter of public interest; (2) the claimant’s behaviour is reasonably construed as intended to restrain the defendant’s exercise of freedom of speech; and (3) the claimant’s behaviour is intended to cause harm or inconvenience beyond ordinary litigation.
When assessing whether conduct is intended to cause harm, the statute explicitly includes expense, harassment, alarm and distress and permits the court to consider disproportionate costs, unequal resource access, and failures to follow pre-action protocols or reasonable procedures.
The rules must prevent courts from ordering defendants to pay claimants’ costs in SLAPP claims unless the court finds misconduct by the defendant that justifies such an order; the court may also decide SLAPP questions of its own motion.
The Lord Chancellor can extend the bill’s requirements to other court or tribunal rules by statutory instrument, and the bill repeals specific strike-out provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Obligation to adapt Civil Procedure Rules for SLAPP strike-out
This section obliges the rule-making power (the Civil Procedure Rules) to include a mechanism for pre-trial strike-out where a claim is a SLAPP and the claimant cannot show it is more likely than not to succeed. Practically, rule-makers must design a process for preliminary merits assessment: what evidence may be admitted at the threshold, how to test it, and whether the court may rely on presumptions. The section also requires rules to allow the court to initiate a SLAPP determination itself, increasing the chances of early disposal even where a defendant does not apply.
Default rule restricting claimant cost recovery in SLAPP cases
Section 1(4) instructs that, for SLAPP claims, courts should not order a defendant to pay the claimant’s costs except where defendant misconduct justifies it. This flips the usual claimant-cost recovery risk in certain circumstances and compresses the financial incentive to bring marginal claims aimed at silencing speech. Drafting of CPR will need to define ‘misconduct’ and provide procedural safeguards for assessing it.
Statutory definition of a SLAPP claim and factors courts must consider
Section 2 sets out the three-limb test that determines whether a claim is a SLAPP and lists illustrative public-interest topics (unlawful behaviour, false statements, public health, climate/environment, public-body investigations). It tells courts to ignore legal limitations on speech—such as whether the expression could be defamatory—when judging whether the claimant intended to restrain speech. The section also lists factors the court may take into account (disproportionate reaction, resource imbalance, failure to follow pre-action protocols) and gives examples of conduct relevant to that assessment (jurisdiction choice, dilatory tactics, disclosure fishing).
Consequential amendments to Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023
This short, technical section removes sections of the 2023 Act that currently grant powers to strike out certain claims and adjusts the extent provision of that Act. The effect is to consolidate strike-out authority for SLAPPs within the new framework rather than the 2023 Act’s provisions, which changes the statutory landscape for where and how early-strike powers operate.
Extent, commencement and short title
Section 4 confines the Act to England and Wales, sets commencement at two months after passage, and provides the short title. That geographic limitation leaves cross-border and non-devolved jurisdiction litigation (e.g., Northern Ireland or overseas claimants/defendants) outside the Act’s direct coverage and preserves existing forum and jurisdictional complexities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Journalists and investigative reporters — they gain stronger procedural protection against expensive, merit-light suits intended to chill publication of public-interest material because courts will have a clearer early mechanism to dismiss SLAPPs.
- Non-governmental organisations and campaigners — advocacy groups that speak on public-interest issues will face lower risk of being pushed into silence or costly settlements when targeted by litigation designed to intimidate.
- Individual defendants with limited resources — the limits on cost recovery for claimants and the availability of court-initiated review reduce the financial asymmetry that often forces early settlements by under-resourced speakers.
Who Bears the Cost
- Claimants who use litigation as a reputational or regulatory tool — they face a higher threshold at the pre-trial stage and greater risk of having their claims struck out and bearing their own costs if the claim is a SLAPP.
- Litigation funders and claimant-side law firms — a tougher early filter and restricted cost recovery make financing marginal, strategic claims less attractive and increase the due diligence expected before taking on cases.
- Court administration and judges — courts must adopt and apply new procedural rules, engage in arguably more intensive early fact-finding and manage development of presumptions and evidentiary standards, which may increase short-term workload and training needs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing protection for public-interest expression against access to justice for legitimate claimants: enforcing a robust early strike-out mechanism curbs abusive, silence-driven litigation but risks denying meritorious plaintiffs a full hearing if courts set the pre-trial threshold too high or undertake fact-finding that short-circuits trial rights.
The bill sets out a precise statutory test, but leaves the hard work to rule-makers and judges. Key implementation questions centre on evidentiary thresholds and processes: what constitutes sufficient material to show a claim is ‘more likely than not’ to succeed at trial at the strike-out stage; how and when courts may use presumptions; and the permissible depth of fact-finding pre-trial.
Those design choices determine whether the mechanism becomes a quick filter for abusive litigation or a cumbersome mini-trial that delays justice.
The statutory instruction to ‘ignore’ legal limits on speech for the purpose of assessing whether conduct aims to restrain expression is analytically fraught. It creates an initial shield for speech on matters of public interest even where the expression may later be found unlawful, but it also risks prematurely insulating genuinely unlawful conduct from robust judicial scrutiny at the threshold.
The amendment to the Economic Crime Act 2023 further complicates the statutory map for strike-out powers and may produce transitional uncertainty until rule changes and judicial practice settle.
Finally, the bill’s geographic limitation to England and Wales leaves open cross-jurisdictional avenues for claimants seeking plaintiff-friendly fora and raises the prospect of forum shopping. The Lord Chancellor’s power to extend the provisions to other courts by regulation provides a tool to broaden coverage, but the timing, scope and parliamentary scrutiny of such instruments will be consequential for the bill’s real-world effect.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.