Mohamed Amersi: Tory donor’s libel claim against ex-MP ‘at an end’

High Court judge says he 'struck out' libel claim against Charlotte Leslie

Tory donor Mohamed Amersi had accused Charlotte Leslie of publishing documents to a number of “influential individuals” and defaming him. Photo: Anadolu Agency

A Conservative donor who sued a former party MP for libel has been told by a High Court judge that his claim “is at an end”.

Mr Justice Nicklin said on Wednesday that he had “struck out” Mohamed Amersi’s libel claim against Charlotte Leslie.

The judge, who considered evidence at a High Court hearing in London earlier this year, outlined his decision in a written ruling.

He said the “evidence relied upon” did not “disclose a claim with a real prospect of success”.

Mr Amersi had accused Ms Leslie, former MP for Bristol North West, of giving documents to a number of “influential individuals” and defaming him between late December 2020 and early January 2021.

The judge had been told that people Ms Leslie allegedly gave information to included former MP David Lidington, MP Julian Lewis, MP Crispin Blunt, former MP Alan Duncan and Sheikh Fawaz.

Ms Leslie asked the judge to strike out the claim “for failing to plead a proper case on serious harm”.

The judge said he was “not satisfied” that Mr Amersi had “demonstrated a case of serious harm to reputation” which had a “real prospect of success”.

He said Mr Amersi’s evidence demonstrated there had been “some republication” beyond the “original publishees”, but the evidence was “far too speculative”.

Mr Justice Nicklin said he had considered whether Mr Amersi should be given a chance to attempt “to remedy the issue that has led to the claim being struck out”.

But the judge concluded Mr Amersi should not be given a further opportunity to see whether he “can plead a case of serious harm to reputation”.

The judge said he did not think there was “any realistic prospect” that Mr Amersi could “advance such a case”.

“In summary, the claimant’s evidence demonstrates that there has been some republication of the memos and their contents beyond the original publishes,” said the judge.

“The evidence is far too speculative.

“Further, the claimant has failed to produce any evidence that such republication has caused serious harm to his reputation.”