Tax lawyer Dan Neidle made history last month by successfully defending against an £8 million libel claim, the first lawsuit officially designated as a Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Despite this victory, Neidle asserts that current UK law remains insufficient to protect individuals from the wealthy who leverage legal threats and falsehoods to suppress legitimate criticism with minimal repercussions. Speaking at Spear’s 500 Live 2026, Neidle articulated his concerns, stating, "[P]eople with significant access to money and resources can silence their critics, and they can lie when they do it. And there’s no consequence for them. That needs to change."
The landmark ruling saw an £8 million libel claim against Neidle struck out, marking the inaugural instance of a UK court applying the statutory definition of SLAPP to a legal action. This definition, incorporated into law through the Economic Crime & Corporate Transparency Act 2023, came into effect in June of the preceding year. The claim had been initiated by tax barrister Setu Kamal following Neidle’s critical commentary on tax schemes associated with Kamal.
The Legal Battle and the Limits of Current Protections
While the High Court ultimately ruled in Neidle’s favour, the process was arduous and costly. To secure the dismissal of the claim, Neidle incurred £150,000 in legal fees, a sum that has since been reimbursed. The legal proceedings spanned six months. Furthermore, the SLAPP designation, as currently defined, is exclusively applicable to cases involving financial crime. This limitation significantly curtails its protective scope, leaving a broad spectrum of other potentially damaging legal actions outside its purview.
"There’s an awful lot of intimidation of whistleblowers, of victims of sexual assault, of other appalling conduct which has nothing to do with financial crime," Neidle observed during his address at the Savoy. He strongly advocated for the expansion of the "anti-SLAPP rule" to encompass "all defamation claims." Neidle also called for accountability for lawyers and prospective claimants who employ false statements within legal correspondence. He highlighted a recurring pattern: "Time after time, oligarchs, criminals, rapists send libel threats under the cover of letters from lawyers containing statements that are false." For individuals lacking substantial financial means, the "rational thing to do" when faced with such threats is often to capitulate. However, Neidle lamented that even when individuals resist, "the lawyers can just drop it and walk away – no consequence for the lawyers, no consequence for the clients. That is wrong."
Broader Implications and Calls for Reform
The efficacy of existing regulatory bodies, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), in curbing such practices has been questioned, leading Neidle to declare, "the law should change." He expressed skepticism regarding the likelihood of new SLAPP legislation being introduced in the upcoming King’s Speech.
The context of Neidle’s assertion is crucial. His public profile has been shaped by investigations into the tax affairs of prominent figures. Notably, his scrutiny of former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi’s tax arrangements preceded Zahawi’s dismissal by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Further investigations by Neidle have targeted high-profile individuals and their business dealings, including Michele Mone and Douglas Barrowman’s Covid-era ventures and Peter Mandelson’s connection to Epstein-related leaks, all of which have attracted significant media attention.
However, Neidle’s advocacy has not been without its challenges. At least two significant rulings, one from the High Court and another from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), have not aligned with positions Neidle and the SRA had advanced.
Case Studies: Navigating Legal and Regulatory Landscapes
One such case involved an investigation into Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs. Neidle forwarded an email from Zahawi’s solicitor, Ashley Hurst of Osborne Clarke, which urged a retraction of allegations concerning Zahawi’s tax arrangements. This email was marked "Confidential & Without Prejudice." Neidle and the SRA contended that the restrictive labelling was inappropriate, as the conditions for its use were not met. They characterized the letter as bearing "the hallmarks of a SLAPP."
In May 2024, the SRA brought this matter before the SDT. The tribunal ruled that there was no valid basis for classifying the email as confidential and deemed the alleged misconduct "very serious." Hurst was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £260,000 in costs to the SRA. However, Hurst appealed this decision. The High Court subsequently overturned the SDT’s ruling, ordering the SRA to cover Mr. Hurst’s legal costs. Following this outcome, Hurst stated on LinkedIn, "It’s been a long and stressful road but I’m pleased to say that I won the appeal and have been exonerated."
A separate professional conduct case involved a letter sent in 2017 by Carter-Ruck partner Claire Gill, threatening defamation proceedings against an investor who had voiced concerns about the cryptocurrency OneCoin. OneCoin was later exposed as a scam, with its founder, Dr. Ruja Ignatova, listed on the FBI’s most wanted list. Neidle collaborated with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism to examine this case and lodged a formal complaint with the SRA regarding Carter-Ruck’s conduct. The SRA announced its intention to prosecute Gill in August 2025.
Prior to the main SDT hearing, Carter-Ruck sought an anonymity order and reporting restrictions, which were denied. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that "the Carter-Ruck retainer was engaged in furtherance of fraud by OneCoin and Dr Ruja Ignatova." However, in a significant reversal in December 2025, the SDT dismissed the case against Gill before the substantive hearing commenced. The tribunal concluded that the prosecution was based on "hindsight not evidence of professional misconduct" and even commended Gill’s professionalism. Carter-Ruck has indicated its intention to seek approximately £1 million in costs from the SRA.
Neidle’s Perspective on the Rulings
Commenting on the High Court’s decision to overturn the SDT’s ruling against Ashley Hurst, Neidle stated, "The idea that someone can make a meritless threat of defamation proceedings and you are then never able to talk about it is inimical to freedom of speech and public policy, and it shouldn’t be permitted."
Regarding the SDT’s decision in favour of Carter-Ruck, Neidle reiterated previous remarks: "When I said I’d say this, Carter-Ruck vaguely threatened libel action against me. When I then said it: nothing. And that’s because it’s true. So why the SDT found what it did, I don’t know."
Neidle has faced accusations of political motivation, given his membership in the Labour Party. However, he declined to disclose his voting intentions at the next general election at the Spear’s conference. He defended his position by stating, "[J]ust because you have a particular political view doesn’t mean you lose your powers of rationality." He elaborated, "So I have been pretty mean about this government’s tax policy. I’ve accused several Labour politicians of failing to pay their taxes when they should. Anyone who thinks of some kind of partisan hack is, well, I think they’ve got an agenda."
Proposals for Tax System Reform
In a wider discussion on reforming the UK tax system, Neidle suggested that "simplify tax in ways that are essentially costless" is achievable. He identified corporation tax as "way too complex" and advocated for the elimination of "irrational kinks" in the system. He cited the anomaly where an individual earning £100,000 faces a higher marginal tax rate than someone earning £150,000 as an example of such irrationality.
"Worry less about billionaires leaving the UK," Neidle advised. "Worry more about junior doctors, accountants, coders leaving the UK, because they’re at that point [of earning around £100,000] where the tax rules really bite and look deeply irrational." He further proposed the abolition of stamp duty, council tax, and business rates, advocating instead for the implementation of a land value tax.
Neidle, who has previously expressed reservations about the viability of a wealth tax, believes it is "too late" to entice High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs) back to the UK following the Labour government’s tax policy changes. He specifically pointed to the abrupt introduction of inheritance tax on former non-doms’ worldwide assets as a significant misstep. "It would have been much more sensible… phase it in over time, bit by bit: boil the frog," he remarked. "If you did something like that, then some of those who left wouldn’t have left."
The Role of Advisers in Tax Compliance
Addressing the audience, many of whom are advisers to UHNWs and family offices, Neidle dismissed the notion that his career shift from advising corporations to scrutinizing individuals constituted a "poacher turned gamekeeper" scenario. He argued, "Most advisers, a lot of what we do is keeping our own clients on the straight and narrow. Our clients are complicated people… with many competing interests. Very often [they] will want to do a thing that we think is on the wrong side of the line, or too close to the line. We need to make sure they do the right thing and, ideally, also keep the client. The people who are making sure the correct tax is paid by the very wealthy [and] multinationals are mostly not HMRC, it’s the advisers. So I was a gamekeeper then, I’m a gamekeeper now."
About Spear’s 500 Live
Spear’s 500 Live is recognised as a premier event for private client professionals and key figures within the private wealth and family office sectors. The 2026 edition convened on May 6th at The Savoy in London. The event was presented in association with partners including the Charities Aid Foundation, CMB Monaco, Guernsey Finance, HCA Healthcare UK, Payne Hicks Beach, Riverstone, Scott Dunn Private, and Stewardship. For commercial inquiries related to Spear’s events, interested parties can contact [email protected].
