Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Bill 2026: Second Stage Dail Éireann — 2026-09-29 ============================================================ Catherine Ardagh (FF), Dublin South-Central I thank the 11 Deputies who contributed, namely, Deputies Ward, Gannon, Devlin, Ó Snodaigh, Kelly, Butterly, Callaghan, Collins, O'Donoghue, Tóibín and Gogarty. Many of the questions posed by the Deputies were answered by other Deputies, but I will do my best to go through many of the questions that were posed. Most of the Members raised the importance of the SLAPP legislation. The most recent data from the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe suggests that 34 SLAPP cases were filed in Ireland between 2010 and 2025. This is not a huge number, but we are also very conscious that collecting information on SLAPPs can be challenging for a number of reasons. Many Members outlined that some SLAPP-type cases might be started on a pre-litigation basis between the parties and before court proceedings are filed. The phenomenon of SLAPPs has only been defined at EU level since the adoption of the directive in 2024. Many SLAPP cases go unreported because those targeted or intimidated do not have the resources to compile and report information on their cases. We must, therefore, be careful not to confuse the lack of information on the issue with the lack of an issue, because there clearly is very much an issue there. A lot of Members raised the issue of attacks on democracy by litigation. A semi-related issue is the use of deepfakes and social engineering attacks on politicians. However, it is not just on politicians and Members of this House but also on local advocates and residents, where attacks online or by way of litigation have a chilling effect on their public participation. Deputies Gannon, Kelly, Tóibín and Gogarty raised the issue regarding why a case has to be manifestly unfounded to be dismissed early and questioned whether that threshold is too high. There have been some suggestions that the requirement that the claim be manifestly unfounded to be dismissed at an early stage is too onerous. I understand the desire to provide protection for those targeted by abusive proceedings against public participation. However, the striking-out of proceedings represents a limitation on the right of access to the courts, and a balancing exercise is therefore necessary. The Bill outlines an indicative list of circumstances where proceedings might be considered manifestly unfounded, for example in cases where the endorsement, pleading or claim is an abuse of the court process. The list is expressed to be non-exhaustive and takes account of recommendations made by the justice committee in its pre-legislative scrutiny report on the SLAPP provisions contained in the Defamation (Amendment) Act. The wide definition aims to allow the court enough flexibility to balance those rights as fairly as possible in the circumstances in each case. Deputy Ward asked why there is specific reference to defamation proceedings but not to other types of proceedings. It was Deputy Callaghan who answered that this legislation is not limited to defamation proceedings. It is the finality of legislation to incorporate all civil and commercial matters. On the issue of costs and why the provision of financial assistance is excluded from the supports that may be provided to a defendant, while this may be discussed on Committee Stage, third-party litigation funding and class actions are not permitted in Ireland. The Bill provides a number of other important supports to the targets of SLAPP proceedings, including the ability of a relevant person or organisation to make legal submissions to the court or provide it with information relevant to determining whether the proceedings are SLAPP proceedings, as well as other non-financial forms of assistance the court considers appropriate in the circumstances. It will also a person or entity targeted by SLAPP proceedings to recover more generous costs and damages to compensate for any loss, including financial loss, suffered by a defendant as a result of the proceedings. On the general subject of costs, turning to a point mentioned by Deputies Gogarty and Kelly, the general scheme of the civil reform Bill was published earlier this year. It forms part of an holistic approach to the reform of the civil justice system in Ireland, together with other ongoing access to justice reforms, including the judicial planning working group and the Courts Service modernisation programme. These collective reform measures will deliver significant efficiencies across the court system, and we hope we will see a reduction in legal costs. The Bill is a key implementation measure for the legislative recommendations made by the review of the administration of civil justice, otherwise known as the Kelly report. In 2020, the Kelly report made over 90 recommendations regarding civil procedure in the courts, covering discovery, judicial review litigation, multiparty litigation, facilitative court users and technology and e-litigation. The recommendations are intended to take an holistic approach to reform of the civil justice system and require implementation amendments to legislation and the rules of court as well as operational provisions. Other Members asked why we were introducing damages for SLAPP cases. That was raised by Deputies Ward and Gannon. Allowing targets of SLAPP cases to seek damages for injury, loss or harm suffered as a result of those proceedings is important. It recognises the extraordinary and abusive nature of SLAPP proceedings, which are brought, not to genuinely assert or exercise a right but rather to prevent, restrict and penalise public participation through pressure and intimidation. It also recognises that these proceeding frequently seek to exploit an imbalance of power between the parties, which often involves one party using its position to place significant financial and psychological pressure on the other. It is important not only that those targeted by SLAPPs are empowered to seek redress and acknowledgement of the harm they have suffered but also that there are significant consequences for those who initiate SLAPPs, which we hope will discourage the taking of these forms of proceedings. Regarding legal aid, I think Deputy Collins raised the question as to why legal aid was not allowed in cases involving SLAPP. There are no specific legal aid provisions in the Bill as reform of legal aid is being considered more broadly by the Department. The Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 and associated regulations govern the provisions of civil legal aid by the Legal Aid Board. Section 28 (9)(a) of the 1995 Act provides that certain "designated matters" are excluded from the scope of civil legal aid. Defamation is one of those matters. Also, legal assistance is not generally available on foot of the legal aid scheme. There are some very limited exceptions to this. The future of civil legal aid generally is being considered by the Department in the context of the civil legal aid review. In June 2022, a civil legal aid review group chaired by former Chief Justice Mr. Frank Clarke was established to review the current operation of the civil legal aid scheme. The findings of the civil legal aid review group were published in July 2025 and they contain a number of recommendations relating to the scope and eligibility of the civil legal aid scheme. A number of broader questions were posed by colleagues. One of the issues raised was in relation to the threatening letters to those who are considered public participants. It is hoped this matter can be addressed. I am sure it will be addressed on Committee Stage. There was also a question on whether the Courts Service will publish the figures of SLAPP cases. This is something on which we can engage with the Courts Service, and we will do so. Deputies Kelly and Gannon raised the issue of whether bringing a motion to assess the case as a SLAPP case should pause the proceedings. In some ways this would happen automatically. Like in any type of case, once an interim motion is brought the proceedings would be paused at that stage. Other Deputies mentioned they will put down amendments on Committee Stage. We look forward to seeing those amendments and discussing them with Deputies then. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2026-09-29/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-10-05T01:00:59+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-09-29