Amersi v Leslie & Anor [2023] EWHC 1368 (KB) (07 June 2023)

Amersi v Leslie & Anor [2023] EWHC 1368 (KB) (07 June 2023)

The claimant's original particulars of claim failed to plead a proper case on serious harm as required by s.1 Defamation Act 2013, relying solely on inference rather than evidence of actual impact on publishees. However, the claimant should be permitted to amend his particulars of claim to particularise and clarify his case on serious harm, subject to compliance with the rules. The strike-out application is refused at this stage, but the claimant is required to serve amended particulars of claim that comply with the statutory and procedural requirements. The court has jurisdiction to order disclosure of costs information for case management, but the issue of whether to require such...

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1368 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Mohamed Amersi; First Defendant: Charlotte Leslie; Second Defendant: CMEC UK & MENA Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Amendment and Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Amendment application granted; strike-out application refused at this stage; issue of costs disclosure adjourned.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm to Reputation, Section 1 Defamation Act 2013, Amendment of Pleadings, Disclosure, Strike Out Applications, Costs Management, Repetition Rule, Republication, Practice Direction 53 B
Defamation Media Law Data Protection Serious Harm to Reputation Section 1 Defamation Act 2013 Amendment of Pleadings Disclosure Strike Out Applications +4 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Amersi

Claimant

Charlotte Leslie

First Defendant

CMEC UK & MENA Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's particulars of claim adequately plead serious harm as required by s.1 Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend his particulars of claim to particularise serious harm
  3. 3 Whether the claim or parts of it should be struck out for failure to plead a proper case on serious harm

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's original particulars of claim failed to plead a proper case on serious harm as required by s.1 Defamation Act 2013, relying solely on inference rather than evidence of actual impact on publishees. However, the claimant should be permitted to amend his particulars of claim to particularise and clarify his case on serious harm, subject to compliance with the rules. The strike-out application is refused at this stage, but the claimant is required to serve amended particulars of claim that comply with the statutory and procedural requirements. The court has jurisdiction to order disclosure of costs information for case management, but the issue of whether to require such...

Court Disposition

Amendment application granted; strike-out application refused at this stage; issue of costs disclosure adjourned.

Orders

  • Claimant permitted to amend particulars of claim to particularise serious harm to reputation.
  • Strike-out application refused at this stage, pending service of amended particulars of claim.