Defamation Defense & Defendant Representation · Legal briefing
SLAPP Dismissal & Urgent Injunction Defence
By Adv. Yechiel Rachamim Menahemov & Adv. Assaf ShpigelPublished:
Identify the characteristics without assuming the conclusion
A strategic lawsuit against public participation uses the cost of proceedings to deter public debate. Examine resource and power imbalances, public interest, the relationship between the amount claimed and harm, and conduct before and during litigation. There is no arithmetic test classifying every substantial claim as a SLAPP. Public criticism also does not automatically remove a person’s right to protect their reputation.
Vaknin: procedural tools and their limits
In LCA 1954/24, Vaknin v Kibbutz Nir David, decided on 7 January 2025, the Supreme Court considered abusive proceedings and responses to SLAPP claims. The majority recognised dismissal in appropriate cases and substantial costs, assessed through the circumstances rather than cumulative checklist requirements. The particular application was rejected because further factual examination was required. The judgment therefore promises neither automatic dismissal of criticism-related claims nor compensation to defendants. Full Supreme Court judgment — LCA 1954/24
Early dismissal alongside a substantive defence
Regulations 41 and 42 of the Civil Procedure Regulations provide distinct tools for striking out claims, including abuse of process. Select a concrete ground and explain why it can be determined early without conducting a full trial within the application. A dismissal application does not itself suspend the defence deadline: obtain an appropriate order where a stay or extension is required. Regulations 41 and 42 discussed in Vaknin
Removal injunctions: respond promptly and proportionately
An interim prohibitory or mandatory injunction requires separate attention even where the main claim appears abusive. Assess the prima facie case, balance of convenience, urgency, good faith and proportionality alongside freedom of expression and reputation. Mandatory relief altering the existing position deserves particular scrutiny. A narrower alternative, such as concealing a specific detail, may be considered instead of a blanket prohibition; the appropriate remedy depends on law and evidence, not an assumption that all criticism is immune.
Evidence of the proceedings’ purpose
Preserve earlier demands, threats, requests to withdraw criticism, compensation correspondence and comparable publications treated differently. Record actual reach and public context rather than follower totals alone. An organised chronology may distinguish an attempt to repair real harm from pressure intended to burden the publisher. Collect evidence lawfully, without accessing accounts without permission or circulating further private information.
Costs: a supported application rather than a reimbursement promise
Substantial costs may address abusive proceedings, but their amount is judicially determined and does not automatically equal the sum claimed. Records of work, unnecessary applications and procedural conduct support a focused request. An unfounded application by the defendant may itself attract adverse costs. Assess benefit, exposure and evidence at every step rather than turning the defence of expression into retaliatory litigation.
Defend the publication on its merits
A SLAPP argument does not replace analysis of meaning, truth, public interest, good faith or permitted publication. Develop substantive defences even while seeking early dismissal and distinguish facts from evaluation. Where appropriate, negotiate a precise clarification without abandoning legitimate criticism, examining confidentiality, costs and complete resolution of the dispute.
The first steps after service
Record service, hearing and urgent-response dates. Preserve the publication and reach information before making changes, and supply all correspondence to counsel, including unfavourable material. Avoid impulsive public replies. Dismissal, defence, injunction responses and settlement must be assessed against the documents and available time; describing a claim as a SLAPP does not bring the proceedings to an end.