Mohamed Amersi v Charlotte Leslie
[2023] EWCA Civ 1468
Mohamed Amersi v Charlotte Leslie & Anor.
7 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1368 (KB)
High Court
Someone spread mean things about a guy. He sued, but the judge said he didn't prove the mean things hurt his reputation enough. The judge also thought the guy was wasting everyone's time and money with his lawsuit.
Key Facts
- •Mohamed Amersi (Claimant) sued Charlotte Leslie and CMEC UK & MENA Limited (Defendants) for defamation.
- •The defamation arose from several documents ('Memos') circulated by the First Defendant.
- •The Claimant's original Particulars of Claim alleged 15 publications of 16 Memos to 13 publishees, claiming 22 distinct defamatory imputations.
- •The Claimant initially pursued a data protection claim to obtain the identities of unidentified recipients.
- •The Claimant amended his Particulars of Claim to clarify his case on serious harm to reputation.
- •The Defendants applied to strike out the Claimant's claim for failing to plead a proper case on serious harm.
Legal Principles
Merits test for permission to amend is the same as summary judgment.
Elite Property Holdings Ltd -v- Barclays Bank plc [2019] EWCA Civ 204
Amendments must contain sufficient detail and disclose reasonable grounds.
Habibsons Bank Ltd -v- Standard Chartered Bank (HK) Ltd [2011] QB 943
Court can reject implausible, self-contradictory pleadings unsupported by evidence.
Elite Property Holdings Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 204
A realistic claim is one that carries some degree of conviction, more than merely arguable.
Easyair Ltd -v- Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
In summary judgment, the court must not conduct a 'mini-trial'.
Swain -v- Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
A statement is not defamatory unless its publication caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation.
s.1 Defamation Act 2013
Each publication of a defamatory statement is a separate cause of action.
Banks -v- Cadwalladr [2023] EWCA Civ 219
Outcomes
Claimant's application to amend Particulars of Claim refused.
Claimant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success in proving serious harm to reputation for each publication. Evidence was largely inferential and unsupported by direct evidence from publishees.
Defendants' application to strike out the Claimant's claim granted.
Original Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR PD 53B §4.2(3) by not providing separate particulars of serious harm for each publication. The Claimant's attempt to aggregate reputational harm across multiple publications was rejected.