Mohamed Amersi v Charlotte Leslie & Anor.

Mohamed Amersi v Charlotte Leslie & Anor.

The claimant failed to provide evidence, direct or inferential, that any of the publications to the identified publishees caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation as required by s.1 Defamation Act 2013. The attempt to aggregate harm across publications was contrary to law. The proposed amendments did not disclose a real prospect of success and the original pleadings failed to comply with CPR 53B PD 4.2(3). The claim was struck out and permission to amend refused.

Parties
Claimant: Mohamed Amersi; First Defendant: Charlotte Leslie; Second Defendant: CMEC UK & MENA Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Amendment and Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Claim struck out; permission to amend refused; no further opportunity to replead granted.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Requirement, Pleading Standards, Reputational Harm, Strike Out, Amendment of Pleadings, Republication/percolation, Costs Management, Abuse of Process
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Serious Harm Requirement Pleading Standards Reputational Harm Strike Out Amendment of Pleadings +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Amersi

Claimant

Charlotte Leslie

First Defendant

CMEC UK & MENA Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Amendment and Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's pleadings and evidence disclose a real prospect of establishing serious harm to reputation as required by s.1 Defamation Act 2013 for each publication complained of
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be granted permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to particularise serious harm to reputation
  3. 3 Whether the claim or parts of it should be struck out for failure to plead or evidence serious harm to reputation

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide evidence, direct or inferential, that any of the publications to the identified publishees caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation as required by s.1 Defamation Act 2013. The attempt to aggregate harm across publications was contrary to law. The proposed amendments did not disclose a real prospect of success and the original pleadings failed to comply with CPR 53B PD 4.2(3). The claim was struck out and permission to amend refused.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; permission to amend refused; no further opportunity to replead granted.

Orders

  • The plea of serious harm to reputation in the original Particulars of Claim is struck out.
  • Permission to amend the Particulars of Claim is refused.