Jill Shaw and Rachel Kemp

Against the backdrop of increasing ESG litigation internationally, we look at what effects the EU SLAPP Directive and the SLAPP Bill transposing the Directive into Irish law may have on ESG-related litigation.

What is SLAPP Litigation?

In the recent case of Glenveagh Homes Ltd -v- Lynch & Anor [2024] IEHC 157, the Irish High Court described Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) as “a relatively recent iteration of an old phenomenon – the bringing of proceedings to disrupt and silence opponents rather than obtain justice”.

SLAPPs are a form of legal action that are strategically used by individuals or companies with the aim of suppressing public participation, public interest litigation and critical reporting of public interest matters. Although defamation claims are the most frequent vehicle for SLAPPs, such proceedings may encompass a broad spectrum of civil and criminal causes of action. They can arise in a wide number of public interest matters, such as environmental protection, corporate whistleblowing, public interest journalism and exposure of political corruption. SLAPPs also include bad faith procedural tactics such as delaying proceedings, fraudulent or abusive forum shopping or the discontinuation of cases at a later stage of the proceedings in bad faith.

In Glenveagh, the Irish High Court set out a number of “indicia of SLAPPs” under four main headings. The court highlighted that not all of these indicia need to be present in order for a matter to be a SLAPP, but when a number of the factors are present “an inference of abuse can arise”.

The emergence of SLAPPs in ESG litigation

There is a growing trend internationally (most notably in the US) of using litigation, not only to advance climate and ESG goals but also to resist or deter public debate or activism, whether through SLAPP litigation or the use of other bad faith procedural tactics.

One recent, high-profile example from the US involved an action taken by Energy Transfer LP against Greenpeace International. In 2025, a North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace to pay over US$660m in damages related to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace denied leading the protests and called the suit a clear attempt to silence dissent. The judgment, which includes liability for defamation, trespass and nuisance has raised fears it could force the organisation into bankruptcy and chill similar advocacy efforts. The award against Greenpeace was substantially reduced by the North Dakota District Court when it delivered final judgment on 27 February 2026 – to $345m – however Greenpeace have stated that they will contest this decision all the way to the North Dakota Supreme Court if necessary.

In the Irish context, in addition to the Glenveagh decision discussed above, there has been a wider trend evolving in the Irish courts in relation to SLAPP issues, with some recent examples discussed below.

• In April 2022, the High Court delivered judgment in Kelly & Ors -v- An Bord Pleanála & Ors [2022] IEHC 238. Local residents had been granted leave to apply for judicial review of a decision granting planning permission for a housing development in County Dublin. The notice party developer made an application to set aside leave for judicial review. The applicants characterised various proceedings taken by the developer alleging defamation and illegal funding of proceedings, as SLAPP litigation. While the court did not ultimately address whether the actions constituted SLAPP litigation, the judge agreed with previous judgments of the High Court critical of so called “applicant shaming” and approved statements quoting CJEU Advocate General Kokott that “the environment cannot defend itself before a court, but needs to be represented, for example by active citizens or non-governmental organisations”.
• In Connective Energy Holdings Limited -v- Energia Group ROI Holdings DAC [2024] IEHC 23, the High Court expressly linked disproportionate costs to SLAPP dynamics. It observed that SLAPPs rely on the “tail” of legal costs to “wag the dog” of justice, weaponising ruinous exposure to coerce settlement and chill participation. In that context, the High Court cited the Supreme Court’s warning against costs driven “blackmail” in Farrell v The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland [2013] 2 ILRM 183 and the court’s observation that settlement pressure born of irrecoverable costs is “something less than the administration of justice according to law”. The High Court cautioned that when costs massively outweigh the value or importance of the dispute, the resulting absence of proportionality distorts outcomes.
• The 2025 decision of Celio Properties Limited & Ors -v- Fintan Monaghan & Ors [2025] IEHC 546, related to an application to strike out proceedings brought by private landowners seeking a declaration that no public right of way existed over certain lands. The defendants argued the case disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was abusive (including alleged SLAPP characteristics). On alleged abuse/SLAPP, the defendants maintained that the proceedings were initiated to “create confusion and to interfere with the ability of the third named defendant to exercise its right of access to the courts”. They claimed that the plaintiffs were trying to obstruct separate s. 160 proceedings, which were aimed at protecting the environment. The court accepted the need to protect access to environmental justice but found this was not a clear case warranting strike‑out. While some indicia of SLAPP were present, the overall context and the stateability of the claim undermined the SLAPP allegation.

The European focus and route to the SLAPP Directive

The crystallisation of a narrative around SLAPP litigation in Europe and the need to combat it at EU level is a relatively recent development. In 2020, the European Parliament commissioned a study which recommended “an inclusive process of EU legislative reform to tackle the growing problem of SLAPPs” including the drafting of a dedicated anti-SLAPP EU Directive. A further study carried out by the EU Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs in 2021 on “The Use of SLAPPs to Silence Journalists, NGOs and Civil Society” also recommended that an anti-SLAPP Directive should be adopted.

In late April 2022, the European Commission issued Recommendation (EU) 2022/758 on protecting journalists and human rights defenders from unfounded or abusive court proceedings (Recommendation (EU) 2022/758) and also proposed a directive “on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings”.

EU Directive 2024/1069 (the SLAPP Directive) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 April 2024, comprising 24 Articles across 6 Chapters and aims to provide:

The SLAPP Directive expressly invites member states to provide provisions of a higher protection than those stated in the Directive. The Directive contains safeguards such as early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims, protection against third-county judgments and support for defendants, including costs remedies and allowing the support of associations, organisations or trade unions.

According to Article 22, member states are required to transpose the SLAPP Directive into national law by 7 May 2026. Despite the fact that Ireland is entitled to a derogation from applying EU Directives relating to the areas of freedom, security and justice, Ireland expressly opted in to the adoption and application of the SLAPP Directive.

Ireland’s transposition of the SLAPP Directive

On 11 February 2026, the General Scheme of the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) Bill was published. The Bill seeks to complete the transposition of the SLAPP Directive which was partially transposed in relation to defamation actions by way of the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026. It should be noted that the SLAPP Bill goes further than the SLAPP Directive in that it does not require a cross-border element. The General Scheme of the Bill states that the safeguards it provides for will apply to both domestic and cross-border proceedings.

The SLAPP Bill is marked for priority drafting for the Spring Session, as noted in the Spring Legislation Programme 2026 and, once published, the Bill will go through the normal legislative process prior to being signed into law.

In announcing the General Scheme of the SLAPP Bill, Minister Jim O’Callaghan stated that:

The SLAPP Bill currently includes 13 “Heads” – which identify the core legislative provisions that will be included in the Act and allow for the carrying out of pre-legislative scrutiny and debate by the Oireachtas. These Heads identify the direction of travel for the Bill, but the final text of the Act will likely include a range of amendments arising from the input of the Dáil and the Seanad at debate stage. We have set out below some of the key features of the Bill as it currently stands:

What’s next

The full text of the SLAPP Bill is expected shortly. Once published, the Bill may also be subject to amendments as it makes its way through the legislative process. According to the SLAPP Directive, the deadline for transposition is 7 May 2026. It remains to be seen whether Ireland will be in a position to comply with this deadline.

Once in force, it will be interesting to see whether the Bill will provide extra protections to those subject to SLAPP type proceedings.

Jill Shaw is ESG and sustainability lead at A&L Goodbody and Rachel Kemp is a senior practice development lawyer in the firm’s litigation and dispute resolution department. Anna Lee Dowling also assisted in producing this article.