Overview

• The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that an email labelled ‘without prejudice’ misused confidentiality to restrict publication, fining Hurst £50,000 and ordering him to pay £260,000 in costs.
• Hurst has lodged an appeal to the High Court’s Administrative Court division, arguing the tribunal’s factual determinations were irrational and unsustainable.
• He maintains that the email contained a genuine settlement offer aimed at opening negotiations with Dan Neidle.
• The Solicitors Regulation Authority has defended the tribunal’s findings as open to its consideration, emphasising Hurst’s use of an ‘implicit threat’ to deter publication.
• Neidle warns that if Hurst succeeds, it could set a precedent allowing solicitors to shield libel threats from disclosure, risking broader free speech protections.