The courts have been busy. In the past few months, two significant developments have reshaped the UK litigation landscape in ways that matter to businesses, individuals, and anyone who has ever been on the wrong end of an abusive legal threat. Here’s what you need to know.

The Anti-SLAPP Ruling That Changed the Rules for Free Speech

In March 2026, a High Court judgment sent shockwaves through the world of reputation litigation — and delivered a major blow to those who use the courts as a weapon rather than a shield.

In the first ever test case of the UK’s new laws against SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), a London High Court struck out an £8 million libel claim brought by a tax avoidance promoter against journalist and former tax lawyer Dan Neidle. The judge described the claim as “oppressive” and “spectacularly inflated” — more than five times the largest libel award ever made by an English court.

SLAPPs are abusive lawsuits designed not to win, but to silence. Powerful individuals and corporations have long used the tactic to bury criticism under the weight of prohibitive legal costs. Until now, the law offered victims little protection.

The new statutory framework — tested for the first time in this case — allows courts to strike out claims at an early stage where they appear designed to stifle free expression rather than vindicate a genuine legal wrong. The ruling was welcomed as a significant step forward, though campaigners warn the protections remain incomplete. Neidle himself noted that even a “hopeless claim, badly litigated” cost him £146,000 to defeat — a sum that would be impossible for most individuals or smaller publishers to bear.

What this means for you: Whether you’re a business, journalist, whistleblower or individual facing a legal threat designed to intimidate rather than litigate, the landscape is shifting. Equally, if you are bringing a legitimate defamation or reputation claim, the courts will now scrutinise purpose and proportionality more carefully than ever. Getting early, specialist advice on how your claim will be characterised is no longer optional — it’s essential.

The Litigation Funding Case That Could Reshape Access to Justice

In February 2026, the Administrative Court granted permission for a landmark judicial review that will, for the first time, force the courts to consider the principles governing collective action settlements — and how litigation funders should be treated when those settlements are reached.

The case arises from the long-running Merricks v Mastercard saga. The Competition Appeal Tribunal approved a £200 million settlement in 2025, but awarded litigation funder Innsworth Capital — which had invested over £45 million in the case — only a 0.5x return on its investment. Innsworth challenged that decision, and a Divisional Court has now been asked to consider whether the CAT applied the right principles when approving the settlement and determining the funder’s return.

The case is particularly timely given the Government’s ongoing review of third-party litigation funding, and its outcome could have significant implications for the economics of large-scale collective proceedings in the UK.

What this means for you: Litigation funding has become an increasingly important route to justice for individuals and businesses with meritorious claims but limited resources to pursue them. The rules governing how funders are compensated — and how settlement distributions are approved — directly affect whether funded litigation remains a viable option. A decision that curtails funder returns could reduce the availability of funding for future cases. One that protects them could encourage more. Either way, anyone involved in or considering a funded dispute needs to understand how this develops.

The Bigger Picture

These two cases share a common thread: they each expand, test, or challenge who can access justice and on what terms.

The anti-SLAPP ruling signals that abusive litigation is finally being taken seriously as a problem in its own right — shifting power back towards those who are targeted unfairly. The Merricks v Mastercard funding challenge will help define whether the infrastructure that makes large-scale claims possible is itself on solid ground.

At Griffin Law, we have been at the forefront of complex, high-stakes litigation for decades. If either of these developments raises questions about your position — as a claimant, defendant or potential participant in funded proceedings — we welcome a conversation.

Griffin Law is a dispute resolution firm comprising innovative, proactive, tenacious and commercially-minded lawyers. We pride ourselves on our close client relationships, which are uniquely enhanced by our transparent fee guarantee and a commitment to share the risks of litigation. For more details of our services please email justice@griffin.law or call 01732 52 59 23.

GRIFFIN LAW – TRANSPARENT FEES. TENACIOUS LAWYERS. TRUSTED PARTNERS.

Nothing in this document constitutes any form of legal advice upon which any person can place any form of reliance of any kind whatsoever. We expressly disclaim, and you hereby irrevocably agree to waive, all or any liability of any kind whatsoever, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, to you or any other person who may read or otherwise come to learn of anything covered or referred to in this document. In the event that you wish to take any action in connection with the subject matter of this document, you should obtain legal advice before doing so.