Conservative donor has defamation case against Tory MP struck out | Conservatives

A major Conservative party donor has had his defamation claim against a former Tory MP struck out by a high court judge, who criticised his conduct.

The telecoms businessman Mohamed Amersi, who has donated more than £500,000 to the party since 2018, sued Charlotte Leslie – the director of the Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC), which was also a defendant – claiming several documents that were circulated to influential individuals between late December 2020 and early January 2021were defamatory of him.

Amersi – the founder of the rival Conservative Friends of the Middle East and North Africa Limited – complained of 22 imputations that he claimed were conveyed in memos sent to the current or former Conservative MPs David Lidington, Julian Lewis, Crispin Blunt and Alan Duncan, the former Tory co-chair Ben Elliot, and Bahrain’s ambassador to the UK, sheikh bin Mohammad Al-Khalifa.

The imputations included that Amersi waged an oppressive campaign to take over CMEC, that he posed a threat to the national security of the UK, and that he was close to the Russian regime.

On Wednesday Mr Justice Nicklin ruled, in a written judgment, that Amersi had failed to show that he had suffered serious harm as a result of the relevant publications. Duncan was said to have had pre-existing “antipathy” towards Amersi, while others were said to have got their information, including about his alleged connections with Russia, from other sources such as newspaper articles.

Nicklin said: “There are several aspects of the conduct of the claimant – many of which were relied upon by the defendants – that give real cause for concern as to (1) whether his pursuit of these proceedings has been genuinely to seek vindication rather than some other impermissible collateral purpose(s) and (2) whether he has sought to obtain this vindication at proportionate cost.”

The judge referred to a delay in bringing proceedings, which he said was “inconsistent with a desire to seek prompt vindication” and Amersi’s “exorbitant approach to the litigation”.

Nicklin also cited the fact that Amersi brought a data protection action against Leslie first before bringing a libel action rather than bringing them simultaneously – describing this as a decision that was “both deliberate and tactical”.

He added: “Subjecting a person to successive civil claims can be a hallmark of abusive conduct.”

Finally, the judge questioned Amersi’s motivation for bringing the claim in the first place. Nicklin wrote that the claimant’s interviews in the media and some of his witness statements “strongly suggest that the claimant has treated this libel action as providing him with an opportunity also to seek to embarrass (and possibly to punish) the Conservative party for, as he perceives it, having wronged him. That is not a legitimate purpose of civil proceedings for defamation.”

Nicklin highlighted an Observer article from last year in which Amersi complained that he was excluded from elite Conservative party events.

In parliament, David Davis hailed the judgment as “a great victory for free speech”. The former cabinet minister has previously referred to the claim as a Slapp (strategic lawsuit against public participation), which is designed to silence public criticism.

Amersi, who previously said “nothing could be further from the truth” than characterising the case as a Slapp, said he was “bitterly disappointed” by the decision and considering whether to appeal.

He said: “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.”

Leslie said she was delighted, calling it “a good day for freedom of speech”.

A costs hearing will take place on Tuesday.