Recent reporting in the Press Gazette (19 February 2026) shows editors from major national newspapers - including The Guardian and The Telegraph - urging the government to revive a standalone anti‑SLAPP law. Their concern is simple: without statutory reform, the UK remains exposed to abusive litigation tactics aimed at silencing public‑interest reporting.

Parliament Pauses - But the SRA Has Stepped In

While Parliament hesitates, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has already filled the gap. As I outlined in my earlier analysis on recent warnings and proposals for reform around SLAPPs, the SRA’s updated Warning Notice (May 2024) and its subsequent thematic review set out a clear, uncompromising position. The regulator makes it clear that solicitors cannot rely on the absence of legislation as a defence. It expects firms to identify SLAPP‑risk matters early, supervise them properly, and ensure senior oversight of sensitive correspondence and litigation strategy.

What the Anti‑SLAPP Bill Was Designed to Achieve

Before the government shelved it, the proposed legislation aimed to introduce three core protections:

• A fast‑track strike‑out mechanism for claims brought primarily to intimidate or silence, rather than to vindicate a legal right.
• A higher threshold for claimants in public‑interest cases, requiring them to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success and a proper purpose.
• Costs protection for defendants, recognising that the financial burden of defending a weak claim is often the real silencing mechanism.

These measures aim to prevent parties from weaponising litigation - particularly against journalists, NGOs, academics and whistle‑blowers. But the principles behind them extend far beyond media law.

The SRA’s Position: No Ambiguity, No Excuses

In the absence of statutory reform, the SRA has made its expectations unmistakably clear. The Warning Notice makes it clear that solicitors must not allow clients to use them as “instruments of oppression or abuse”. It highlights behaviours that breach existing Principles and the Code of Conduct, including:

• aggressive or intimidating correspondence
• unsubstantiated allegations
• unnecessary confidentiality demands
• threats designed to pressure rather than inform
• leveraging cost asymmetry as a tactic

The thematic review reinforces this message. It emphasises the need for proper supervision, early risk assessments, and partner‑level oversight in reputation‑sensitive matters. The SRA has already opened investigations where conduct has crossed the line.

Why this Matters For Commercial Disputes

Although SLAPPs most often arise in defamation and media law, the same dynamics appear regularly in commercial litigation. Power imbalance, cost pressure and strategic litigation tactics extend well beyond the newsroom. SMEs, in particular, can face tactics that mirror SLAPP‑type behaviour - where process becomes punishment and the threat of cost becomes the real leverage.

The stalled legislation may yet return, especially with renewed pressure from the press. But until it does, the regulatory expectations are clear. Solicitors must navigate high‑risk matters with care, integrity and robust internal controls. The absence of a statutory regime is not a gap the profession can hide behind.

Legal disclaimer

The information in this article is provided for general guidance only. This blog does not constitute legal advice, nor does it offer a complete or authoritative statement of the law in England and Wales.

I take care to ensure the information is accurate, but I give no warranty, express or implied, as to its correctness. I accept no liability for any errors or omissions.

You should always seek expert advice before acting on any of the information contained in this article.

© Melissa Worth, February 2026