What are SLAPPs and why do they matter for lawyers and democracy?

Strategic litigation is not always about winning a case, but about silencing dissent. In a UNSW Law & Justice webinar, Grata Fund Acting General Counsel Nicole D’Souza explained how Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, are used to intimidate critics and shape public debate

D’Souza described SLAPPs as legal actions brought not to resolve disputes but to pressure individuals and communities who speak on issues of public importance, particularly in areas like climate justice, human rights and democracy. These cases often rely on legitimate legal mechanisms, making them difficult to identify, yet are marked by power imbalances, expansive pleadings and costly procedural tactics that can impose significant financial and emotional strain. High-profile Australian examples, including the Gunns litigation and actions linked to the Stop Adani campaign, illustrate how such proceedings can stretch over years before being withdrawn, while still achieving a chilling effect on activism and public participation.

The webinar also highlighted the ethical tension facing lawyers navigating these cases. While acting in a client’s interests, solicitors remain bound by overriding duties to the court and the administration of justice, requiring scrutiny of claims that may harass, intimidate or serve collateral purposes. With limited legislative protections in Australia and growing international reform efforts, D’Souza positions SLAPPs as an evolving legal and ethical challenge that sits at the heart of access to justice and democratic accountability.

If this topic interests you, you can learn more and receive a CPD point in Ethics and Professional Responsibility here