In July 2022, I wrote that I thought Nadhim Zahawi had lied about his taxes. I was right. Nadhim Zahawi lied repeatedly about his tax affairs, and continued to do so until it became public in January 2023 that – at the same time he was saying he’d always paid taxes in full – he was negotiating a £5m settlement with HMRC, including back-taxes plus penalties. Mr Zahawi was then sacked by the Prime Minister.
Nadhim Zahawi’s solicitor, Ashley Hurst, emailed me that July demanding that I retract my allegation, with the implicit threat of libel action if I did not. He went further: he claimed that the email was “without prejudice” and confidential, and that I was not permitted to publish it or even refer to it. He said it would be a “serious matter” if I did. I took that to be another threat.
I was astonished at the idea that a solicitor could send someone a libel threat, and prevent them from publishing it, or even mentioning it. The Solicitors Regulation Authority agreed, publishing guidance making clear such conduct was prohibited, and then prosecuting Mr Hurst before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
In December 2024, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the email was improper, and agreed that it contained an implicit threat of action against me if I disclosed the existence of the email. Mr Hurst was fined £50,000 and had to pay the SRA’s costs of £298,391, as well as his own costs of £908,172.1Although I expect Osborne Clarke are paying these – the firm has backed Mr Hurst throughout.
Mr Hurst is now appealing to the Administrative Court. Here are his grounds of appeal:
Here is the SRA’s response:
My take: if Mr Hurst wins this appeal, then solicitors will have a green light to claim their libel threats cannot be published, or even referred to. The “secret SLAPP” will have become blessed by the courts.
That would be a terrible result for everybody who cares about free speech.
- 1Although I expect Osborne Clarke are paying these – the firm has backed Mr Hurst throughout.
16 responses to “The Zahawi libel story isn’t over – his lawyer is appealing”
The appeal seems to be based on the underlying facts of the situation rather than the findings of the SRA Tribunal?
In effect the appeal seems to be trying to re-argue the case.
I have been highly critical of certain professional bodies who in my opinion have failed the less aware members of the public who trusted those with letters after their name, only to find themselves in a world of trouble. That trouble is worsened by the professional bodies failing to discipline errant “advisers” and further, failing to change the rules to ensure it does not happen again.
I therefore have a very cynical view of professional bodies (even my own) and if the SRA wished to deliberately lose this appeal, it would not surprise me.
Having read the SDT report and the grounds of appeal I still don’t understand how it was even arguable that the unsolicited correspondence could impose a duty of confidentiality on the recipient. I guess I’m just a humble lawyer rather than “head of client strategy”
Keep going Dan, you are one of the good guys, we need more like you.
If the appeal succeeded it could intimidate defendants into retracting or abandoning their criticism of wealthy litigants due to fear of financial ruin.
The disparity in resources between wealthy claimants and defendants makes SLAPPs particularly effective in the UK
It looks as with most inveterate gamblers he’s chasing good money after bad!
There is a slight imbalance in costs there. A million point three squids and a £50k fine for sending out your bog standard superinjunctive type bully letter? Who wouldn’t feel hard done by?
This should be quixotic but you never know. We should find out if the SRA really means it and in that sense only I think this is a useful test.
Might his costs, at least in part, be for his own time? If so, in being so large, constituting another implicit “threat”?
Agree Dan! A big moment for the Solicitors regulator to prove they either have integrity or are just thugs in good suits !
Would this action from Hurst need to have explicit, or implicit, backing of Zahawi himself?
Great question!
Dan’s note states that it is the Solicitor with the “backing” of his firm. This is about professional conduct and not the merits or otherwise of the associated claim.
I am afraid solicitors are in a club and they will stick together, never accept responsibility even if the whole World comes tumbling down
Roy
The case actually shows that the opposite is true. The Appellant is a solicitor and he’s been disciplined (rightly so in my opinion, speaking as a solicitor) by the SRA. Where is the “club”?
Not sure that is accurate. This example is a Solicotor (the author of this website) specifically pursuing another solicitor for bad behaviour to help keep standards.
this is lazy conspiratorial thinking, bearing no relation to what actually happened.
The SLAPP orders have been abused by many people, a legislation that was not designed for silencing people. It’s time the threshold for getting such SLAPP orders are raised and the reason for getting such orders are defined and tightened.