‘Detail is defence’ says Tax Policy Associates founder
Dan Neidle, Founder of Tax Policy Associates is in quite a unique position as being part of the first successful case to use the new ‘anti-SLAPP’ legislation. While this ‘anti-SLAPP law’ came into force in 2023 through an amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, this is the first time that it has been used in a court case and the court recognised that the case was, indeed, a SLAPP.
Prior to this, however, Mr Neidle had found himself subject to another high-profile legal threat, when in July 2022 he received a Twitter (now X) direct message from the former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nadhim Zahawi’s lawyers, Osborne Clarke, asking for a phone call. Mr Neidle had been researching Zahawi’s financial ties to YouGov, raising concerns that the former Chancellor had been benefitting from tax codes that he had shaped. This information was then published in a detailed Twitter thread by Mr Neidle, which prompted the direct message from Zahawi’s lawyers. Mr. Neidle refused to speak over the phone, emphasising the importance of any correspondence being written: “One of the first things any litigator learns is that everything must go in writing. Never have significant discussions over the phone. You can’t prove what was said. And you risk saying something in the moment that you regret.”
Mr Neidle received letters from the law firm, asking him to retract his accusation, but Mr. Neidle did not. The first letter received was marked ‘confidential and without prejudice’. ‘Without prejudice’ is a label that is used to indicate that communication is made to attempt to settle a dispute and is therefore protected from disclosure in court. Mr Neidle explained why this was problematic: “This wasn’t an attempt to settle. It was just an attempt to shut me up, and hide the fact I had been shut up. The use of “without prejudice” was completely unjustified.”
Instead, he chose to publish the letters and make people aware of the legal threat that he was facing, emphasising that when it comes to SLAPP tactics, those engaged in them want you to be silent and he believes that there is power in going public with the information and raising awareness of SLAPPs: “The Chancellor of the Exchequer was lying about his tax and trying to silence people who wrote about it. The only answer to that is to put everything out in the open.”
In August 2022, Mr Neidle raised a complaint with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) and a decision by the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal found that the lawyer who sent the letter had acted improperly. The decision was handed down in December 2024, but there has been an appeal, which was successful
Image credit: Tax Policy Associates Ltd
However, legal threats still persist, as the most recent case that Mr Neidle has been involved in shows. In March 2026, he defeated an £8 million libel claim in the first case to be struck out as a SLAPP in England & Wales. Mr Neidle’s Tax Policy Associates had published a report about a firm called Arka Wealth, which had published TikTok videos promoting a tax-avoidance scheme. The scheme was supported by a tax barrister, Setu Kamal, who declined to comment on Mr Neidle’s article. Months following its publication, he threatened defamation proceedings and also tried to obtain an interim injunction, which the court rejected.
“The injunction application was a joke, but a scary one. It was an “on notice” injunction. You don’t have to be a legal expert to surmise that means I should have had notice of it. But he gave me no notice. Just sent to the court.”
But then Mr. Neidle received a letter informing him that he was subject to an £8 million defamation claim against him and Tax Policy Associates. Mr Neidle sought to have the claim struck out and him and Tax Policy Associates were the first to rely on the new anti-SLAPP rules in the ECCTA. The court held that the case was a SLAPP and was struck out. In its judgment from 11 March 2026, Justice Collins Rice found that Mr Neidle’s journalism was a ‘piece of serious investigative journalism and expert commentary and analysis’ and was ‘extensively reasoned, sourced and cross-referenced by hyperlink and footnote’ [90]. Mr Niedle stressed the importance of documenting everything when working on a story, stating that ‘detail is a defence’: “
“To rely on either the opinion defence or the public interest defence you have to show that what you wrote was based on the facts available to you. Keeping track of everything is critical. And the more you can “show your working” when you publish, the better.”
While this landmark case highlights how far we have come for SLAPPs to be officially recognised by the courts, there is still more work to be done in terms of developing the legislation, as Mr. Neidle states: “It’s a disgrace that it takes £146k and six months to dispose of an obviously hopeless lawsuit. We need better and faster ways of ending SLAPPs, and it shouldn’t be limited to economic crime.”
Dan’s Advice
1. Write about it if you can
“If someone’s trying to stop you going public then that will often be a huge story in itself – sometimes bigger than the underlying accusation.”
2. Read the legal letter that is sent to you and dissect the claims being made
“Libel lawyers may be experts in libel law, but if you’re writing an article about dodgy widget manufacture then it’s very unlikely the lawyers know anything about widgets. They will be relying entirely on what their client says. Pick apart anything that shows the lawyers are making statements they don’t themselves understand.”
3. Document everything and be confident in your journalism