Defamation – Proving Serious Harm Across Multiple Publications

In Amersi v Leslie and Others (2023), the Court refused permission for the claimant to amend his particulars of claim on the grounds that the proposed amendments and supporting evidence failed to demonstrate a proper case of serious harm to his reputation.

Amersi v Leslie and Others

Case background

The claimant in this defamation case, Mr Amersi, is the founder of the Conservative Friends of the Middle East and North Africa Limited. The first defendant, Ms Leslie, is a former MP and managing director of the second defendant, CMEC UK & MENA Ltd.

Mr Amersi’s claim related to the publication of several memos by the defendants to thirteen recipients, which included other MPs and various high-profile individuals.

The complaints in relation to these publications were separated into 22 distinct imputations, which he stated were defamatory of him. This included the suspicion that he posed a risk to national security and that he had attempted to set up a rival organisation to CMEC, which would damage the diplomatic interests of the UK and the Conservative Party.

In his original particulars of claim, Mr Amersi had relied upon 15 separate publications and advanced a single paragraph containing a composite case on serious harm to his reputation in relation to each of these publications, alongside this his pleaded case on serious harm was entirely inferential.

The Court raised concerns regarding the claimant’s approach during the preliminary stages of the proceedings. It was further noted that the claimant failed to comply with Paragraph 4.2 (2) of the CPR PD 53 B.

The claimant was ordered to issue and serve an application notice (with evidence in support) seeking permission to amend his particulars of claim to particularise fully his case on the serious reputational harm caused to him (or likely to be caused to him) by the publications of the statements complained of.

Key considerations

The key issues in the case surrounded whether each individual publication had caused or is likely to cause serious harm to Mr Amersi’s reputation.

For a claim to be successful, it must also satisfy the condition set out in Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. Section 1 provides:

Courts decision

The Court rejected the claimant’s attempt to (again) rely on a composite pleading of serious harm to reputation within his amended particulars of claim. It was acknowledged that there is a clear and principled basis on which the Court can, in an appropriate case, infer a degree of ‘percolation’ caused by the repetition of defamatory allegations in cases involving widespread publication, where a claimant complains of publication of a defamatory statement to either a single publishee or a limited number of publishee(s).

In this case, the Court found that despite being able to identify some of the individual publishees, Mr Amersi was unable to produce evidence of serious harm caused by the individual publications such as witness statements from the individuals alleged to have received the memos in question. The Court referenced the impact of Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (2020) in that such reputational harm must be proved.

The Court refused permission for the claimant to amend his particulars of claim, and the defendant’s application to strike out the plea of serious harm to the claimant’s reputation was successful.

Comment

The case of Amersi v Leslie and Others has served as a reminder that in a defamation claim, each publication of a defamatory statement gives rise to a single cause of action. It, therefore, needs to be assessed on its own merits and facts.