Mohamed Amersi v Charlotte Leslie & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1368 (KB)
Mohamed Amersi v Charlotte Leslie
7 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1468
Court of Appeal
A man sued for libel, claiming damage to his reputation. The judge threw out his case because he didn't prove enough people thought worse of him due to the statements. The appeal court agreed, saying even if the law might allow combining the harm from multiple similar statements, the man hadn't argued his case that way.
Key Facts
- •Libel action brought by Mohamed Amershi against Charlotte Leslie and CMEC UK & MENA Limited.
- •Action concerned 16 written publications ('Memos') containing allegedly defamatory imputations about Amershi.
- •Judge struck out the claim, finding Amershi failed to plead a reasonable basis for a claim, specifically regarding the 'serious harm' requirement under the Defamation Act 2013.
- •Amershi appealed, arguing the judge misinterpreted the serious harm requirement and wrongly excluded 'Slipper' damages.
- •The appeal court considered whether the 'serious harm' requirement necessitates a separate assessment for each publication or if cumulative harm across multiple publications is permissible.
Legal Principles
Serious harm requirement under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013: A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation.
Defamation Act 2013, section 1(1)
Slipper damages: Damages for reputational harm caused by onward publication of a defamatory statement.
Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283
Assessment of serious harm: Whether the serious harm requirement is met must be determined based on the facts, which can be done inferentially. It should be assessed publication-by-publication (unless publications are substantially the same, in which case the cumulative impact is relevant).
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27, [2020] AC 612; Banks v Cadwalladr [2023] EWCA Civ 219
CPR 3.4(2)(a): A claim can be struck out if it fails to plead a reasonable basis for a claim.
CPR 3.4(2)(a)
CPR Part 24: Reverse summary judgment on the issue of serious harm is possible, but rare.
CPR Part 24
Aggregation of reputational harm: While the court acknowledged arguable merit in aggregating harm from multiple publications of the *same* statement (or substantially the same statement), this was not how the claim was pleaded. Aggregation of harm from different statements is not permissible.
Case analysis and discussion of Banks v Cadwalladr
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused.
The Court of Appeal found that even if the judge's legal analysis was arguably incorrect regarding the aggregation of harm from multiple publications of the same statement, the claimant failed to plead his case in a way that would allow for such aggregation. Further, the claimant's evidence did not demonstrate a real prospect of proving serious harm from individual publications. The court also considered the claimant's conduct of the litigation and the disproportionate use of court resources.