Since 2010, the Global Law Experts annual awards have been celebrating excellence, innovation and performance across the legal communities from around the world.
posted 2 hours ago
Anti‑SLAPP laws in Australia remain fragmented and incomplete as at 24 June 2026, yet the pressure for reform has never been more intense. Strategic lawsuits against public participation, known as SLAPP suits, use litigation to silence journalists, activists, whistleblowers and community organisations, and the growing wave of high-profile cases has forced the issue onto the federal parliamentary agenda. As at the date of this guide, only the Australian Capital Territory operates a dedicated public-participation protection statute; no comprehensive federal anti‑SLAPP law is in force, although proposed anti‑SLAPP legislation is under active parliamentary debate.
This practitioner guide is written for defamation claimants and defendants, in‑house counsel, NGOs and litigators who need immediate, actionable direction on litigation strategy, procedural steps and timing in a fast-moving regulatory landscape.
Australia’s anti‑SLAPP framework is jurisdictionally uneven. Only one territory has enacted specific legislation. The remaining states and territories offer no tailored early-dismissal mechanism for SLAPP suits, forcing defendants to rely on general civil procedure rules that are slower, more expensive and less predictable. The table below summarises the position as at 24 June 2026.
| Jurisdiction | Current Status (as at 24 Jun 2026) | Practical Effect for Litigants |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Capital Territory (ACT) | Protection of Public Participation Act 2008 in force | Provides an early procedural tool in some public participation cases, limited in scope and does not fully cover defamation claims in practice |
| Federal | Proposed 2026 parliamentary activity and exposure drafts under debate | Potential for a national uniform early-dismissal mechanism, not yet in force; monitor parliamentary progress closely |
| States & Territories (NSW, QLD, VIC, WA, SA, TAS, NT) | No comprehensive anti‑SLAPP laws, reliance on civil procedure rules (strike-out, summary judgment, abuse of process) | Defendants must use general procedural tools; outcomes are more uncertain, slower and more expensive |
The ACT remains the only Australian jurisdiction with a specific anti‑SLAPP statute. The Protection of Public Participation Act 2008 (ACT) enables a respondent to apply to the court for dismissal of proceedings that are brought to discourage public participation. The Act was a commendable first step, as the Human Rights Law Centre noted in its December 2024 “Stop the SLAPP” report. However, the legislation is limited in scope: it does not expressly cover defamation claims, and its procedural thresholds have restricted its practical use. For practitioners, the ACT law offers a useful but narrow procedural lever, not a comprehensive defence against SLAPP suits in Australia.
Throughout 2026, federal parliamentary activity on anti‑SLAPP reform has intensified. The Human Rights Law Centre, backed by more than 85 organisations in a joint open letter, has called on the Australian Government to enact comprehensive anti‑SLAPP legislation at the federal level. The Law Institute of Victoria’s June 2026 commentary argued that strategic litigation against public participation is increasingly posing a direct challenge to freedoms protected by the Victorian Charter and comparable instruments. As at 24 June 2026, no federal statute has been enacted, but exposure drafts and parliamentary committee discussions are actively under way. Industry observers expect that any eventual legislation would adopt an early-dismissal model similar to those operating in comparable common-law jurisdictions.
Outside the ACT, defendants facing SLAPP suits in Australia must rely entirely on general court powers. Applications to strike out claims as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are available under standard civil procedure rules in each state and territory. These mechanisms can be effective, but they were not designed to address the specific dynamics of SLAPP litigation, they carry heavier evidentiary burdens, longer timelines and higher costs for the defendant.
An anti‑SLAPP mechanism is a specialised early procedural motion that allows a defendant to seek dismissal of a claim on the grounds that it targets protected public participation. Where enacted, these mechanisms function as a fast-track filter designed to end abusive proceedings before the defendant incurs the full cost and burden of trial. The core purpose is to protect free speech and public interest expression from being silenced through the weaponisation of civil litigation.
In jurisdictions with mature anti‑SLAPP statutes, including parts of the United States, Canada and, as of 2026, Ireland, the mechanism typically operates through a two-stage test. First, the defendant must satisfy the court that the claim arises from conduct connected to a matter of public interest or public participation. Second, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the claim has sufficient merit, typically by showing a prima facie case on the substantive cause of action, to justify the proceedings continuing. If the plaintiff fails that threshold, the court dismisses the action, often with an adverse costs order.
In Australia, there is no nationally uniform anti‑SLAPP motion procedure as at 24 June 2026. Under the ACT’s Protection of Public Participation Act 2008, a respondent may apply to dismiss proceedings that are found to have the predominant purpose of discouraging public participation. In all other jurisdictions, the closest equivalents are general applications for summary dismissal or strike-out. These share the aim of filtering unmeritorious claims early, but they lack the tailored public-interest criteria and reversed burden structure that characterise true anti‑SLAPP legislation.
Although no model anti‑SLAPP statute operates nationally, academic commentary and the HRLC’s proposals suggest a two-stage framework along these lines: “The defendant must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the impugned claim arises from conduct connected to a matter of public interest. The court must then dismiss the claim unless the plaintiff satisfies the court that the claim has sufficient merit to proceed and that the public interest in permitting the claim to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting the defendant’s expression.” This formulation draws on comparative models analysed in academic literature on anti‑SLAPP law reform.
Defamation claims present distinctive challenges in the anti‑SLAPP context. Unlike many other causes of action, defamation inherently involves the publication of material about an identifiable person, which means that the plaintiff’s harm and the defendant’s expressive rights are placed in direct tension. The interaction between defamation and anti-SLAPP protections requires careful tactical calibration on both sides.
In defamation proceedings, the plaintiff must establish that the matter was published, that it identified the plaintiff, and that it was defamatory. The defendant, meanwhile, may raise defences including truth, honest opinion, fair report of proceedings or qualified privilege in the public interest. Where a defendant argues that the defamation claim is a SLAPP suit, the question becomes whether the plaintiff’s real purpose is to silence public participation rather than to vindicate a genuinely damaged reputation. This is a factually intensive inquiry, and it carries risks for both parties.
For plaintiffs who genuinely believe their reputation has been harmed and wish to resist an anti‑SLAPP motion (or anticipate one being brought), the following steps are critical:
For defendants who believe they have been targeted by a SLAPP suit in Australia, the following steps provide a framework for bringing a motion or procedural application:
Timing is one of the most critical variables in anti‑SLAPP strategy. Anti‑SLAPP motions are designed to be brought early, before the defendant is forced to incur the cost of full pleadings, discovery and trial preparation. In jurisdictions with formal anti‑SLAPP statutes, strict filing deadlines often apply. In Australian states and territories without specific legislation, there is no prescribed anti‑SLAPP filing window, but the logic of the mechanism demands promptness: the longer a defendant waits, the weaker the argument that early dismissal is necessary to prevent abuse.
When an anti‑SLAPP motion or strike-out application is made, plaintiffs should respond swiftly. Prepare a detailed evidence plan within the first 48 hours of receiving the application. Seek expedited discovery where the plaintiff’s ability to demonstrate a prima facie case depends on documents held by the defendant or third parties. Budget carefully for the interlocutory phase, and brief counsel with specific experience in SLAPP suits in Australia. Settlement may be appropriate in some cases, but only after a rigorous assessment of the merits and the costs exposure on both sides.
There is no uniform requirement in Australia to meet and confer before filing an anti‑SLAPP motion or strike-out application. However, best practice strongly favours attempting prompt conferral where feasible. A genuine pre-motion exchange can narrow the issues, reduce costs for both parties and demonstrate good faith to the court. Where the claim is genuinely meritless, a well-drafted pre-action letter may resolve the matter without the need for an application at all.
This section provides a practical, step-by-step framework for how to respond to anti‑SLAPP scenarios in Australian courts, whether the party is bringing or opposing a motion. The guidance is necessarily general, specific procedural requirements vary by jurisdiction and court.
Drafting the motion or application. In the ACT, the application should be framed under the Protection of Public Participation Act 2008 and must set out the grounds on which the respondent contends the proceedings were brought for the predominant purpose of discouraging public participation. In other jurisdictions, the application should be framed as a summary dismissal or strike-out under the applicable civil procedure rules, with the substance of the anti‑SLAPP argument set out in supporting affidavit material. Sample headings for the supporting affidavit might include:
Assembling the evidence bundle. The quality of the evidence bundle is often decisive. The table below outlines the core categories of evidence, with guidance for both defendants and plaintiffs.
| Evidence Type | For Defendant (Supporting Anti‑SLAPP) | For Plaintiff (To Resist) |
|---|---|---|
| Public-interest nexus | Media coverage, policy documents, NGO briefs and submissions demonstrating the public character of the expression | Evidence that the publication caused specific reputational harm; explain why the matter was not genuinely public interest |
| Factual basis | Documents showing participation was public, expert affidavits attesting to the public-interest character of the conduct | Witness affidavits, contemporaneous documents contradicting the defendant’s position or demonstrating falsity |
| Procedural history | Early notice of claim, pre-action correspondence, delay flags suggesting intimidation motive | Evidence demonstrating that the claim is bona fide and necessary to vindicate a genuine grievance |
Hearing and outcome. If the court is satisfied that the claim constitutes an abuse of process or, under the ACT Act, that the predominant purpose was to discourage public participation, the proceedings will be dismissed. Costs orders typically follow the event. If the motion is unsuccessful, the defendant will ordinarily face an adverse costs order for the interlocutory phase, and the proceedings will continue on the merits.
Costs exposure is a critical consideration for both parties in SLAPP litigation. If a defendant’s anti‑SLAPP application succeeds, the plaintiff will ordinarily be ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the application. Under the ACT Act, the court may also award damages for the harm caused by the abusive proceedings. If the application fails, the defendant bears its own costs and the plaintiff’s costs of opposing the motion, a meaningful financial risk.
For in-house counsel managing SLAPP risk, the practical steps include reviewing litigation insurance coverage for anti‑SLAPP motions, establishing a pre-approved budget and authority matrix for early-dismissal applications, and engaging experienced civil litigation specialists at the first sign of a SLAPP threat. Early settlement should not be dismissed reflexively, in some cases, a structured resolution will be more cost-effective than an interlocutory battle, particularly in jurisdictions without specific anti‑SLAPP laws in Australia.
The campaign for comprehensive anti‑SLAPP legislation in Australia gathered significant momentum in 2024 and has continued through 2026. The Human Rights Law Centre published its landmark “Stop the SLAPP” report in December 2024, calling on all Australian governments to enact comprehensive anti‑SLAPP legislation. In October 2024, 85 organisations signed an open letter to the Albanese Government urging action to protect public participation and free speech. The Law Institute of Victoria added its voice in June 2026 with a detailed commentary arguing that SLAPP litigation poses a direct challenge to Charter-protected freedoms.
As at 24 June 2026, no federal anti‑SLAPP bill has passed into law, but parliamentary committee processes and exposure drafts remain under active consideration. Practitioners and in‑house counsel should monitor the following for developments: the Australian Parliament’s bills and legislation tracker, the HRLC’s campaign page, and professional body commentary from the LIV and state law societies.
Although Australian case law on dedicated anti‑SLAPP motions remains sparse, reflecting the absence of comprehensive legislation, several international developments provide useful comparative guidance. Ireland enacted anti‑SLAPP legislation in 2026, transposing the EU Anti‑SLAPP Directive into domestic law and establishing a structured early-dismissal mechanism for manifestly unfounded proceedings. The Canadian province of Ontario’s Protection of Public Participation Act 2015 has generated a substantial body of jurisprudence on the two-stage test, offering a practical model for how similar legislation might operate in Australia.
Academic literature on anti‑SLAPP reform in Australia includes early analysis by Ogle (2010) and more recent work by Hanna examining how anti‑SLAPP statutes across England and Wales, New York, Ontario and Australia aim to provide an early dismissal mechanism. Critical commentary, including the May 2026 analysis published on the INFORRM blog, raises valid concerns about the risk of anti‑SLAPP mechanisms being used to defeat meritorious claims. The likely practical effect of any future Australian legislation will depend on how legislators balance these competing interests.
Whether you are a plaintiff contemplating a defamation claim or a defendant facing one, the current anti‑SLAPP landscape demands early, specialist advice. Start by confirming the jurisdictional position: does the ACT Act apply, or will you be relying on general procedural tools? Assemble your evidence early, model your costs exposure and engage experienced litigation counsel without delay. To find a civil lawyer in Australia with specific SLAPP litigation experience, search the Global Law Experts directory by practice area and jurisdiction.
This article was produced by Global Law Experts. For specialist advice on this topic, contact Peter Obrien at OBrien Solicitors, a member of the Global Law Experts network.
Member
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Sign up for the latest advisor briefings and news within Global Advisory Experts’ community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox.
Naturally you can unsubscribe at any time.
Global Advisory Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional advisory services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced advisors, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
