Mohamed Amersi v Charlotte Leslie
[2023] EWCA Civ 1468
Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for the Home Department
20 June 2024
[2024] UKSC 21
Supreme Court
A man sued the government for defamation over a report accusing him of war crimes. A lower court threw out the case, saying it was a waste of time and unfairly targeted the government. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying the man had the right to sue, even if it was difficult for the government to defend the case. The case highlighted the balance between freedom of speech and protecting reputation.
Key Facts
- •Claimant, Mr. Mueen-Uddin, sued the Secretary of State for defamation over allegations in a Home Office report linking him to 1971 Bangladesh violence.
- •Mueen-Uddin had been convicted in absentia by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Bangladesh.
- •The Secretary of State argued the claim was an abuse of process due to a collateral attack on the ICT conviction, unfairness in proving truth, and minimal reputational harm.
- •The Court of Appeal struck out the claim; Mueen-Uddin appealed.
Legal Principles
Abuse of process – Collateral attack on previous proceedings
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529; Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons
Abuse of process – Manifest unfairness
Lord Diplock's definition of abuse of process
Jameel abuse – Trivial defamation claims incompatible with freedom of expression
Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2005] QB 946; Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB); Lait v Evening Standard Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 859; Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27; Defamation Act 2013
Evidence of prior publications in defamation cases – Mitigation of damages
Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1964] AC 371; Goody v Odhams Press Ltd [1967] 1 QB 333; Hollington v F Hewthorn & Co Ltd [1943] KB 587
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Court found the Court of Appeal's reasoning unprincipled, incorrectly applying and combining principles of abuse of process. The claimant's challenge to the ICT conviction was not an abuse of process, and the reputational harm suffered was not minimal. The Court rejected the argument that the cost of litigation outweighed the value of the claim.
Similar Cases
C. CHRISTO & CO LIMITED v NICHOLAS CHRISTOFOROU & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1094 (KB)
Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v Syed Tauqeer Bukhari
[2023] EWHC 427 (KB)
John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Sonia Vanessa Poulton
[2023] EWHC 3001 (KB)
Damian Warburton v The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary
[2023] EWCA Civ 209