High Court throws out £8m libel claim against Dan Neidle in first anti-SLAPP case

The High Court has struck out an £8 million defamation claim brought by tax barrister Setu Kamal against tax campaigner and former Clifford Chance partner Dan Neidle, in the first case to be dismissed under the UK’s statutory anti-SLAPP provisions.

SLAPPs - strategic lawsuits against public participation - are lawsuits typically brought by wealthy or powerful claimants seeking to silence journalists, campaigners or whistleblowers by imposing the cost and pressure of litigation rather than pursuing a viable legal claim.

Mrs Justice Collins Rice granted summary judgment and ruled the claim met the statutory definition of a SLAPP, marking the first time the UK courts have formally applied the new legislation introduced under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.

The dispute

The dispute arose from a report published by Neidle’s think tank Tax Policy Associates in February 2025, which criticised a tax scheme promoted by Estonia-based Arka Wealth, a company Kamal was associated with as a legal partner.

The company posted more than 200 videos across social media platforms including TikTok promoting a “broke on paper” tax avoidance scheme claiming that individuals and businesses could legally pay 0% tax on income, capital gains, inheritance and corporate income in the UK and across Europe.

The report said the claims the company made were “nonsense” and warned that individuals using the structure could face significant tax liabilities.

Kamal later brought a claim for defamation and malicious falsehood against Neidle and Tax Policy Associates, arguing that the publication damaged his professional reputation and wrongly associated him with the tax scheme. As a result, he said he had lost a £1 million contract and his practice had been “decimated” since the report was published.

The outcome

Neidle and Tax Policy Associates sought to have the claim struck out, arguing that the litigation was designed to deter scrutiny of a matter of public interest.

Mrs Justice Collins Rice struck out the claim and granted summary judgment in favour of Dan Neidle and Tax Policy Associates, bringing the litigation to an end without a trial.

She held that the case satisfied the statutory definition of a SLAPP, allowing it to be dismissed at an early stage, a mechanism created under the UK’s new anti-SLAPP regime.

‍What they said

Kamal posted a response to the judgment on LinkedIn writing “there was no scheme as [Neidle] described” and pointed to Neidle’s admission that he was merely posting his opinions, even though they may come across as facts”.

Neidle replied directly to the post calling it “delusional” and also posted his own reaction to the judgment, writing “we won on all grounds”.

Advising

Dan Neidle was represented by defamation solicitor Matthew Gill of the Good Law Project, the campaigning non-profit led by high-profile barrister Jolyon Maugham KC. Barristers Greg Callus and Hannah Gilliland of media and communications specialist set 5RB represented Neidle in court.

According to court documents, Kamal acted for himself and did not rely on outside representation.