Mohamed Amersi v Charlotte Leslie
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Nicklin |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 1368 (KB) |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2021-004630 |
[2023] EWHC 1368 (KB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Nicklin
Case No: QB-2021-004630
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
William McCormick KC and Jacob Dean (instructed by Carter-Ruck) for the Claimant
David Price KC and Jonathan Crystal (instructed by Rradar Limited) for the Defendants
Hearing date: 10 January 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties and their representatives by email and by release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 2:00pm on 7 June 2023.
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Nicklin
This judgment is divided into the following sections:
| Section | Paragraphs | |
| A. | Parties and Background | [5]–[26] |
| (1) | The parties | [5]–[6] |
| (2) | The Claimant's response to the Memos | [7]–[12] |
| (3) | The Defendants disclose copies of the Memos | [13]–[14] |
| (4) | The Data Protection Claim | [15]–[17] |
| (5) | Media coverage of the dispute | [18]–[24] |
| (6) | The claim for defamation | [25]–[26] |
| B. | Statements of Case | [27]–[39] |
| (1) | The original Particulars of Claim | [27]–[38] |
| (a) The publications and alleged defamatory meanings | [28]–[33] | |
| (b) The case on serious harm to reputation | [34]–[38] | |
| (2) | Defence not yet filed | [39] |
| C. | Initial Applications | [40]–[59] |
| (1) | The Order of 23 May 2022: Disclosure application and costs information | [40]–[44] |
| (2) | The Claimant's Disclosure Application | [45]–[59] |
| (a) The Claimant's evidence on the Disclosure Application | [46]–[52] | |
| (b) The Defendant's evidence on the Disclosure Application | [53]–[59] | |
| D. | The hearing on 27 June 2022 | [60]–[68] |
| E. | The Amendment Application | [69]–[137] |
| (1) | The draft Amended Particulars of Claim | [70]–[73] |
| (2) | The evidence relevant to the Amendment Application | [74]–[137] |
| (a) Sir David Lidington | [84]–[98] | |
| (b) Sir Julian Lewis | [99]–[101] | |
| (c) Crispin Blunt | [102]–[105] | |
| (d) Sir Alan Duncan | [106]–[107] | |
| (e) Ben Elliot | [108]–[114] | |
| (f) Sheikh Fawaz | [115]–[121] | |
| (g) Sir Nicholas Soames | [122]–[124] | |
| (h) General reputational harm caused by (re)publication of the Memos | [125]–[137] | |
| F. | The Strike-Out Application | [138]–[139] |
| G. | Legal principles | [140]–[163] |
| (1) | Amendments to Statements of Case | [140]–[142] |
| (2) | Serious harm to reputation: s.1 Defamation Act 2013 | [143]–[163] |
| H. | Submissions | [164]–[181] |
| (1) | Sir David Lidington | [166]–[167] |
| (2) | Sir Julian Lewis | [168]–[170] |
| (3) | Crispin Blunt | [171]–[172] |
| (4) | Sir Alan Duncan | [173]–[174] |
| (5) | Ben Elliot | [175]–[178] |
| (6) | Sheikh Fawaz | [179]–[180] |
| (7) | General reputational harm caused by (re)publication of the Memos | [181] |
| I. | Decision: Amendment Application | [182]–[232] |
| (1) | Sir David Lidington | [185]–[192] |
| (2) | Sir Julian Lewis | [193]–[196] |
| (3) | Crispin Blunt | [197]–[201] |
| (4) | Sir Alan Duncan | [202]–[205] |
| (5) | Ben Elliot | [206]–[217] |
| (6) | Sheikh Fawaz | [219]–[218] |
| (7) | General reputational harm caused by (re)publication of the Memos | [220]–[232] |
| J. | Decision: Strike Out Application | [233]–[241] |
| Annex 1 | Published Articles (1) The First FT Article, 7 July 2021 (2) The Second FT Article, 2 August 2021 (3) The Daily Mail Article, 2 August 2021 | |
| Annex 2 | Document 14 | |
| Annex 3 | Table of publications complained of | |
| Annex 4 | Extracts from the draft Amended Particulars of Claim |
In this libel action, the Claimant complains of the publication by the First Defendant to various individuals of several documents, between late December 2020 and early January 2021 (“the Memos”) (details are given in [28] below). The defamatory meanings that the Claimant alleges were conveyed by the Memos are set out in [29] below.
This judgment resolves two Applications. The Claimant's application to amend his Particulars of Claim – to particularise and clarify his case on serious harm to reputation which he alleges was caused by publication of the Memos (“the Amendment Application”) (see Section E: [70]–[98] below); and a related application by the Defendants to strike out the original claim for failing to plead a proper case on serious harm (“the Strike Out Application”) (see Section F: [138]–[139] below).
Before turning to those Applications, I shall need to set out some of the history of the litigation between the parties (which includes an earlier data protection claim) as well as considering and analysing the extensive evidence that has been filed by the parties.
A: Parties and Background
(1) The parties
In the Particulars of Claim in this action, the Claimant describes himself as a “ businessman and philanthropist”. The Claimant is the founder of the Conservative Friends of the Middle East and North Africa Limited, a company limited by guarantee, incorporated on 21 January 2021, which aims to promote a better relationship between the Conservative Party, the UK Government and the Middle East and North Africa (“COMENA”).
The First Defendant is a former member of Parliament and the managing director of the Second Defendant. The Second Defendant is a company limited by guarantee, incorporated in March 2019. According to evidence filed by the Defendants, however, the organisation, the Conservative Middle East Council (“CMEC”), has been in existence for over 40 years. It was established by the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, on the instruction of the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Its purpose was to forge and maintain relationships between the Conservative Party and the Middle East and North Africa region and included organising events, debates, facilitating interaction between Conservative MPs and Middle Eastern embassies in the United Kingdom and arranging fact-finding missions to the region for Conservative MPs. CMEC is associated with, but no longer formally affiliated to, the Conservative Party.
(2) The Claimant's response to the Memos
The first complaint sent to the First Defendant regarding the Memos was a six-page letter, dated 7 January 2021, from the Claimant's former solicitors, Mishcon de Reya (“the MdR Letter”). The MdR Letter contained a point-by-point rebuttal of the “ scurrilous, misleading and untrue allegations” and sought a retraction of what were said to be these defamatory and false allegations about the Claimant in the Memo “ together with a list of all of those to whom it had been circulated”.
From early January 2021, the Claimant made several people (including many in the Conservative Party) aware of the dispute, including, in many instances, sending some of them copies of the Memos and the MdR Letter (see [110] and [112] below).
The Claimant's current solicitors, Carter-Ruck, sent a further letter of complaint to the Defendants about the Memos, on 21 February 2021. It was clear from the letter that, although he was aware in general terms about circulation of the Memos, the Claimant did not know the identity of all the publishees. In this respect, the letter stated the following:
“Our client is, at present at least, obviously unable to confirm with precision the number of people to whom the memorandum was circulated… Suffice it to say our client had become aware of the identity of a number of recipients to whom the memorandum was sent. The true extent of publication will, of course, be explored further in the event our client is forced to commence proceedings and he will employ all legal methods available to him, including by way of disclosure, in order to arrive at a complete list of those to whom the memorandum was initially circulated.
What our client can confirm, however, is that the memorandum was sent to a number of Ambassadors, diplomats, Conservative Members of Parliament and other individuals in the Arab diplomatic corps in London. This group of people is, as your clients well know, extremely important to our client and to COMENA. Our client holds their opinion of him very dearly.”
The letter sought a “ full list of all those to whom the memorandum has been circulated”, damages and costs. At that stage, the Claimant had identified Sir Nicholas Soames as a potential defendant to the threatened libel action. A response was sought by 26 February 2021, or the Defendants were advised “ they should be left in no doubt whatsoever that proceedings for libel against them will swiftly follow”.
The Defendants did not comply with the Claimant's demands. Nevertheless, proceedings for libel did not “ swiftly follow”. Instead, by letter dated 19 March 2021, the Claimant's solicitors threatened to bring an application, under CPR 31.16, for pre-action disclosure seeking all copies of the Memos that had been published and the identities of all individuals and organisations to whom any version of the Memo had been sent. As well as maintaining the threat of a claim for defamation, the letter advised the Defendants that they “ should be aware that a subject access request is being prepared for service separately”.
On 1 April 2021, the Defendants' solicitors responded rejecting both the claim in defamation and the threatened application for pre-action disclosure. The letter admitted that the First Defendant had published a copy of the Memo to (1) Sir Nicholas Soames (who had then sent it to Ben Elliot, the Co-Chair of the Conservative Party); (2) “ an ambassador of a CMEC territory” (who sent it on to two other such ambassadors); (3) “ a limited number...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siobhain Crosbie v Caroline Ley
...harm requirements of s 1. The relevant principles have been set out in a number of cases, including recently in Amersi v Leslie [2023] EWHC 1368 (KB), [144]–[163], from which the following is gratefully adapted. The leading case is the Supreme Court's decision in Lachaux v Independent Prin......
-
Corinna Zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v HM Juan Carlos Alfonso
...EWHC 2004 (Ch) at [5]). 197 Nicklin J summarised the state of the authorities on permission to amend as follows ( Amersi v Leslie [2023] EWHC 1368 (KB) at [140]): (1) The threshold test for permission to amend is the same as that applied in summary judgment applications: Elite Property Hol......
-
Jack Aaronson Aka Dominic Ford v Marcus Stones Aka Mickey Taylor
...harm requirements of s 1. The relevant principles have been set out in a number of cases, including recently in Amersi v Leslie [2023] EWHC 1368 (KB), [144]–[163], from which the following is gratefully adapted. The leading case is the Supreme Court's decision in Lachaux v Independent Prin......
-
Richard (Raziel) Davidoff v Google LLC
...facts of the case. The basic rules of causation continue to apply: Sivananthan v Vasikaran [2023] EMLR 7 [43]–[46]; Amersi v Leslie [2023] EWHC 1368 (KB) [157]–[159]. As I observed in Amersi ([158]): “ The impact of Lachaux is that such reputational harm must be proved… Drawing inferences ......