Kamal:
The barrister whose £8m claim against high-profile tax lawyer Dan Neidle was ruled the first statutory SLAPP has been handed an interim suspension until September 2027.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has not outlined the reasons for the decision.
In a statement last week, the BSB said: “Setu Kamal was suspended from practice with immediate effect on 6 March by a vice-chair of the BSB’s Independent Decision-Making Body.
“Following an interim suspension hearing on 26 March 2026, Mr Kamal is suspended from his practice as a barrister until 30 September 2027 or such earlier date as the BSB or a disciplinary tribunal have concluded or disposed of the matters that prompted his referral to an interim panel or such as a disciplinary tribunal shall otherwise direct.”
However, the initial decision would not appear a response to the ruling of Mrs Justice Collins Rice [1], as that came on 11 March.
Last September, Mr Kamal became the first practising barrister added [2] to HM Revenue & Customs’ (HMRC) list of tax avoidance promoters.
HMRC said its view was that Mr Kamal “designed four tax avoidance schemes and created contract templates that are essential to how these arrangements operate”.
Collins Rice J granted Mr Neidle summary judgment over Mr Kamal’s £8m claim for libel and malicious falsehood, which related to comments the former Clifford Chance partner made about Mr Kamal’s work on a tax scheme (a different one from the four listed by HMRC).
While it was not a “paradigm” SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation), she said, Mr Kamal’s conduct of the litigation met the statutory definition.
It has recently emerged that the judge also awarded Mr Neidle costs of nearly £150,000 on the indemnity basis, and these were paid by Mr Kamal by the 1 April deadline.
Collins Rice J cited the “unsustainable” valuation of the claim and attempt to allege malice “without any evidence or proffered prospect of evidence”.
Around £70,000 of the money will go to the Good Law Project, which supported Mr Neidle in defending the claim.
On LinkedIn, Mr Kamal – who practised from Old Square Tax Chambers until November 2024 – describes himself as a non-practising tax and Chancery barrister at the Chambers of Setu Kamal.
In a statement to Legal Futures, he stressed that “no charges of misconduct have been particularised by the BSB so far”.
He went on: “Given that HMRC published my name, the BSB believed the public would expect interim measures.
“HMRC published my name alongside their assertion that a liability to income tax arose under the arrangements described by them.
“My view is that the laws HMRC rely on, such as the loan charge, are incompatible with EU laws and that, in fact, no liability to tax arose under those arrangements. I have obtained an academic report which confirms my view.
“This has been co-ordinated by Professor Alfredo Garcia of the University of Valencia, Jean Monnet Chair and recurring advisor to the IMF and the UN.”
Mr Kamal added that he has commenced proceedings in the High Court in Dublin, seeking an injunction to prevent Google Ireland from republishing the HMRC publications, meaning “the accuracy of, and the public interest in” the HMRC statement would be decided under the EU GDPR, Digital Services Act and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
“In the event that there is a referral to the [Court of Justice of the European Union] and the court decides against the compatibility of the UK tax laws concerned, such a decision will be highly persuasive in UK courts and will likely free 70,000 taxpayers who are presently thought to be liable under the loan charge.”
The BSB can impose an immediate interim suspension in “very serious and urgent” cases, but it is time-limited to a maximum of four weeks to allow it to refer the case to the interim suspension panel.
Immediate suspensions are only imposed if the decision maker “is satisfied that this is the appropriate course having considered the risk to the public and the clients if such action were not taken; and the grounds for referral would warrant a charge of professional misconduct and referral to a disciplinary tribunal”, the BSB explained.
In 2024, its rarely used power to refer cases was widened by replacing the ground that such action was necessary to protect the interests of clients, with a wider ground that it was necessary to protect the public or the public interest.
The panel hears representations from both the BSB and the affected barrister about whether a suspension or other restrictions are necessary whilst the matter follows the BSB’s enforcement processes.