Millionaire Tory donor’s libel action against ex-MP thrown out in ‘landmark’ ruling
Exclusive: Verdict comes after long-running legal battle between multi-millionaire donor and former Tory MP
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Press freedom campaigners claimed a “landmark victory” today after a High Court judge threw out a libel action by a multi-millionaire Tory donor against a former Conservative MP.
The verdict by Mr Justice Nicklin came after a long-running legal battle between telecoms tycoon and philanthropist Mohamed Amersi and Charlotte Leslie, ex-MP for Bristol.
Mr Amersi, who along with his Russian partner has given £750,000 to the Tories, backed Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign and has dined with King Charles, claimed he had been defamed by Ms Leslie in a secret dossier.
They fell out in 2020 after she claimed he tried to use his wealth to take over a Tory group run by her which aims to boost UK-Middle East relations.
She sent a dossier which raised questions about Mr Amersi’s past business links Russia to a handful of senior Tories and figures in the intelligence services.
She claimed the information was accurate and that she acted in the public interest.
Mr Justice Nicklin, one of the UK’s most senior media judges, said today that Mr Amersi had “failed to prove serious harm” had been inflicted on him by Ms Leslie. He ruled that the libel case could not proceed further.
Responding to today’s verdict Mr Amersi, 62, said he was “bitterly disappointed” the judge had ruled against him.
He claimed he had been “denied justice” and said Mr Justice Nicklin had provided “effective immunity to those who publish serious falsehoods to small but influential groups of people. This cannot be right or fair”.
Mr Amersi said he will consider appealing the verdict.
Ms Leslie said: “This judgment speaks for itself. I am delighted to have this vindication after two years of legal action against me. It is a good day for freedom of speech.”
Explaining why he was striking out the libel case, Mr Justice Nicklin’s ruling said Mr Amersi “should not be given a further opportunity to see whether he can plead a case of serious harm to [his] reputation…” because there was “no realistic prospect” that he could do so.
And it was “fanciful” for Mr Amersi to claim new evidence could be found to support his claim, he said.
Moreover, the public cost of pursuing the case had to be considered.
The judge said he had a duty to “ensure that judicial and court resources are appropriately and proportionately used in accordance with the requirements of justice”.
Mr Justice Nicklin severely criticised Mr Amersi, saying elements of his case were “hopeless and devoid of reality”.
Witness statements were “not to be used for settling scores or some agenda,” he said, adding, “even worse”, Mr Amersi had appeared to use “legal privilege for retaliation”.
By contrast, Ms Leslie had conducted her case in a “much more straightforward” manner.
Mr Amersi had argued throughout that Ms Leslie’s dossier damaged his reputation and has spent two years trying to sue her in three separate legal actions believed to have cost millions in total.
Former Conservative Cabinet minister David Davis said the ruling was a “landmark victory for press freedom and fair comment”.
Mr Davis said: “This is a great day for journalists and others who face intimidating legal action by wealthy individuals who use the law to stifle the pursuit of the truth and legitimate comment in the public interest.”
Mr Amersi issued proceedings against former journalist Ms Leslie, 44, and the Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC), of which she is the director, after she accused him of trying to take over her group, which came with an offer of £500,000-a-year funding.
When she rejected his move, Mr Amersi tried to set up a rival Tory Middle East organisation, COMENA, she alleged.
He issued data protection and libel proceedings against her through his solicitors Carter-Ruck, accusing her of making false and defamatory statements and demanding a full apology.
The dispute also led to a rift between Mr Amersi and Conservative Party chiefs.
He demanded the repayment of donations after alleging he was excluded from exclusive Tory events.
He also claimed he was not given auction prizes he had bid for at party functions, including breakfast with Mr Johnson, and that party officials were told not to invite him to the Conservative Winter Ball.
Mr Amersi has controversially defended using his personal fortune to gain influence in political and royal circles as “access capitalism”.
Mr Amersi’s statement said: “I am bitterly disappointed that Mr Justice Nicklin has today refused me permission to continue with my libel action against CMEC UK & MENA Limited (CMEC) and its director Charlotte Leslie, on the ground that I could not prove that I had suffered serious harm to my reputation.
“If the judge’s interpretation of the law is correct, it provides effective immunity to those who publish serious falsehoods to small but influential groups of people, as it has done in this case. This cannot be right or fair and I feel l have been denied justice.
“My purpose in bringing legal proceedings was only ever to find out exactly what Ms Leslie said, to whom she said it and to clear my name.
“The judge rightly acknowledged that my evidence was clear in stating that my objective was obtaining vindication. I have been denied that opportunity as a result of today’s judgment. I shall be taking advice on the prospects of an appeal.”
Mr Justice Nicklin said Mr Amersi had produced “no direct evidence of serious harm,” observing that this was a “surprising and risky approach”.
“Waiting to see if something turns up is not how defamation litigation is conducted.”
Allowing the case to continue would be a “massive waste of court resources”.
Partly as a result of the way Mr Amersi had conducted the case he had “exhausted” any claim he might have on the further allocation of court resources on this action.
“No purpose would be served by giving [Mr Amersi] a further opportunity to re-plead his claim and it would not serve his overriding objective to do so. As a result, this claim is at an end,” he said.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments