Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 551 (KB) (11 March 2026)

Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 551 (KB) (11 March 2026)

The particulars of claim in libel and malicious falsehood are struck out in the respects sought by the defendants because they are either bad in law, incoherent, or incapable of amendment to comply with the law. The malice plea is irremediably defective and unsustainable. The claim for an apology is bad in law. The malicious falsehood claim is struck out in its entirety. The libel claim is not struck out in its entirety but must be thoroughly repleaded to comply with the rules. The defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the malicious falsehood claim. The application for summary judgment on the libel claim is not determined in this judgment.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 551 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Setu Kamal; Defendant/applicant: Tax Policy Associates Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Mr Daniel Neidle
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation/malicious Falsehood) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Defendants' applications for strike-out of specified paragraphs and for summary judgment on malicious falsehood granted; libel claim to be repleaded; no order for apology.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Pleading Standards, Malice, Honest Opinion Defence, SLAPP (strategic Litigation Against Public Participation)
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood Strike Out Summary Judgment Pleading Standards +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Setu Kamal

Claimant/respondent

Tax Policy Associates Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Mr Daniel Neidle

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation/malicious Falsehood) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim in libel and malicious falsehood comply with pleading requirements
  2. 2 Whether the claim or parts thereof should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds or as an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the malice plea is adequately and lawfully pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars of claim in libel and malicious falsehood are struck out in the respects sought by the defendants because they are either bad in law, incoherent, or incapable of amendment to comply with the law. The malice plea is irremediably defective and unsustainable. The claim for an apology is bad in law. The malicious falsehood claim is struck out in its entirety. The libel claim is not struck out in its entirety but must be thoroughly repleaded to comply with the rules. The defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the malicious falsehood claim. The application for summary judgment on the libel claim is not determined in this judgment.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications for strike-out of specified paragraphs and for summary judgment on malicious falsehood granted; libel claim to be repleaded; no order for apology.

Orders

  • Paragraph 4, 5(b), and 14 of the particulars of claim struck out
  • All particulars of malice and the entire malicious falsehood claim struck out