Defining SLAPPs

When it comes to defining SLAPPs, there have been attempts by policymakers and researchers to do this. The beneath module explores the different definitions of SLAPPs and also provides some advice on how they are typically launched and how you can spot them.

A plain text version is available here.

What are SLAPPs?

 

 

 

This introductory module explains what SLAPPs are, why they are typically brought and how to recognise them

Defining SLAPPs

In Aotearoa New Zealand, SLAPPs are not explicitly recognised in law or in public debate, but they do arise in practice. There is no statutory definition, no anti‑SLAPP statute, and New Zealand courts have never used or formally recognised the term. SLAPPs are not treated as a systemic problem, even though the tactics associated with them are already visible in defamation and related litigation.

 

How SLAPPs are defined in New Zealand

Because there is no legal definition, SLAPPs in New Zealand are best understood in practical terms as an abuse of legal procedure aimed at deterring or punishing speech on matters of public interest. The “SLAPP” element lies in how the process is used – for example, aggressive pre‑action letters, inflated damages claims, intrusive disclosure orders, and interlocutory skirmishing designed to prolong proceedings and exhaust an opponent’s resources.

For journalists, this means you can be on the receiving end of SLAPP‑type behaviour without any judge ever calling it that or offering you any special protection. There is no special procedure in New Zealand to strike out a claim as a “SLAPP”; judges rely on general powers to strike out abusive or untenable claims, but those tools are used cautiously and are not a dedicated anti‑SLAPP regime.

Who brings SLAPP type cases and against whom?

 

In New Zealand, the patterns broadly track overseas experience. SLAPP‑type threats and claims are most likely to arise around:

  • Economic crime and financial misconduct, including complex corporate structures and cross-border assets.
  • Sexual misconduct and gender-based abuse, especially when powerful figures are accused by less powerful complainants.
  • Climate, environmental and other reporting on how businesses and institutions are run, especially when coverage touches on investment risk or regulatory action and is framed by claimants as causing reputational damage.

Defamation and related claims are frequently brought against major news organisations, with the individual journalist named as a co‑defendant alongside the publisher. Independent or student media are also exposed, but the impact on them can be more acute, as they often lack in‑house legal teams, have limited funds to defend proceedings, and are less able to absorb the pressure that comes with drawn‑out litigation. In New Zealand’s small media market, where key outlets sit within a foreign‑controlled ownership structure, newsrooms can be particularly cautious about cost‑heavy litigation risks, which magnifies the chilling effect of SLAPP‑type threats and claims.

New Zealand’s plaintiff‑friendly defamation law makes it especially attractive to plaintiffs who want to put pressure on critics. That can include:

  • Domestic plaintiffs, such as businesspeople, professionals, and local political figures.
  • Foreign plaintiffs using New Zealand as a forum of convenience—“libel tourists” who see an opportunity in generous jurisdictional rules and the absence of anti‑SLAPP safeguards.

Because publication online may be treated as occurring wherever material is downloaded (New Zealand retains the multiple‑publication rule), it is relatively easy for foreign plaintiffs to argue that New Zealand courts have jurisdiction when content has been read, or could be read, here. The law does not contain explicit guardrails against forum shopping, so contesting jurisdiction can itself become an expensive fight.