The recent fallout between Russell Brand and David Walliams has raised concerns about the use of legal tools to silence individuals who want to speak out. The Law Society Gazette has noted that the cases highlight the issue of wealthy individuals using lawyers to protect their reputations, and how this can impact those who do not have the same resources.
Attention has also been drawn to an older case, in which a masseuse, Szilvia Berki, accused Brand of assaulting her in 2014. Berki took her claims to the press and social media, but was sued by Brand and his then-partner, Jemima Goldsmith, for harassment.
Legal Action and Injunctions
Berki did not have a lawyer and did not get a trial. An interim injunction was granted in 2014, and in 2015, the High Court made it permanent on summary judgment. The final order, which was published by former Clifford Chance tax partner Dan Neidle, bars Berki from discussing the events with anyone, including journalists, friends, and family. She was also ordered to pay £50,000 on account of costs within two weeks, with permission granted to bankrupt her if she did not.
Neidle has stated that the full bill likely ran past £100,000. The courts found Berki’s campaign to be oppressive, but the lifetime ban on discussing the events has raised concerns about whether this is a proportionate response. Goldsmith has defended the order, saying that Berki’s messages frightened her family, but has also expressed support for changing the order’s terms.
Read Also: A&O Shearman funds $1.1B AI plan via billable hours
Walliams sought a permanent injunction against ITN and Guardian News and Media, arguing that publication of allegations against him posed a grave risk to his life. However, Mr Justice Nicklin refused the injunction, stating that it would be an exceptionally serious interference with free expression.
Walliams did not appeal the decision in time, and the Guardian and ITV News named him on 10 November. The published allegations include claims involving teenage fans, which Walliams denies. The investigation also found that a woman received a letter from Schillings’ lawyer Jenny Afia, demanding a written undertaking not to discuss her experience within 24 hours.
SLAPP Laws and Regulation
The UK’s statutory anti-SLAPP regime, which came into force in June 2025, covers economic crime and does not cover sexual misconduct allegations or harassment claims. A broader private member’s bill is due for a Commons second reading on 27 November. The UK Solicitors Regulation Authority issued a SLAPPs warning notice in November 2022 and toughened it in May 2024, warning against aggressive pre-action letters, unrealistic deadlines, and correspondence designed to intimidate unrepresented recipients.
However, the SRA has brought only three SLAPP-related prosecutions before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and has lost all three. In July, it abandoned its appeal in the Carter-Ruck partner case and agreed to pay £85,794 in costs. The profession must balance its duty to clients with its duty to the court and the rule of law.
Read Also: New Zealand franchise law guide published
The fact that a lawful letter can still be a weapon when one side has a media firm on retainer and the other has a deadline and a mortgage highlights the issue of lawfare and silence. The duty to a client is real. So is the duty to the court and the rule of law, which the SRA says comes first. The hard cases are the ones that never reach a courtroom, because one side could not afford to turn up.
The case of Walliams shows that the system can work, if only just, but the fact that he did not appeal the decision in time and the Guardian and ITV News named him on 10 November highlights the potential consequences of not having the same resources as wealthy clients.
On 5 November, a Southwark Crown Court jury convicted Brand of one rape and three sexual assaults involving four women, and he was sentenced to ten and a half years. The case of Berki highlights the need for careful consideration of the use of interim injunctions and permanent injunctions, and the potential consequences for individuals who do not have the same resources as wealthy clients. The fact that she was barred from discussing the events with anyone, including journalists and friends, for the rest of her life, is a stark reminder of the potential consequences of speaking out.
