Ali v Hussain: TikTok allegations of racism, serious harm and a £50,000 libel award

The High Court (Media and Communications List) tried a libel claim arising from four TikTok videos accusing a long serving leisure centre receptionist of racist conduct. The court found that the defendant had published all four videos (including two via an ostensibly separate account), that the publications bore defamatory meanings, that they were statements of fact rather than opinion, that the defendant failed to prove truth, and that the publications caused or were likely to cause serious harm. The claimant was awarded £50,000 damages, together with a permanent injunction and, subject to further submissions, an order requiring publication of a summary of the judgment on TikTok.

Summary of the case and key facts

The claimant, Mr Jahangir Ali, and the defendant, Mr Adnan Hussain, both live in Sheffield and come from Pakistani Muslim backgrounds. Mr Ali had worked at Ponds Forge International Sports Centre in Sheffield for about 30 years, including the last nine years as a receptionist. The defendant was a customer who used the gym and had a significant social media presence on TikTok, where he portrayed himself as a consumer champion exposing allegedly discriminatory behaviour.

The dispute arose from an incident on 4 April 2023. The defendant attended Ponds Forge with a friend, Mr Babar Shah, and was unable to access the gym because his wristband did not work. Staff believed the defendant had entered the gym using another customer’s access. A short, disputed interaction followed at reception, during which the defendant alleged that Mr Ali used racist language (the “racist remark”). Mr Ali denied any such words were spoken and alleged the defendant was rude, overbearing and shouting.

After the interaction, the defendant filmed Mr Ali on his mobile phone. That footage later appeared in four TikTok videos which formed the subject matter of the claim.

The publications and the meanings found by the court

Two videos were published on the defendant’s admitted TikTok account (the “Adnan” account). Two further videos appeared later on a different TikTok account styled @jacko1909 with the username Jessi (the “Jessi” account), which the defendant denied operating.

The court determined the ordinary and natural meanings borne by each video and held that they were as pleaded by the claimant. The meanings were:

Video 1 meant that Mr Ali had racially abused and victimised Mr Hussain.

Video 2 meant that Mr Ali had racially abused, harassed and victimised Mr Hussain.

Video 3 meant that Mr Ali is a racist.

Video 4 meant that Mr Ali is a racist.

Although the defendant did not dispute meaning, the judge still considered it necessary to reach his own conclusion, particularly because the defendant was a litigant in person.

Did the judge consider the meanings defamatory

Yes. The judge applied the established common law test: whether the meaning would tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking people generally, and whether it crossed the threshold of seriousness by having a substantially adverse effect on the way others would treat the claimant.

The court held that allegations that someone has racially abused another person, or is a racist, will almost always be defamatory at common law. The judge considered such allegations inherently grave, likely to lower reputation and likely to affect social and professional treatment.

Fact or opinion: the court’s analysis

A central step in the reasoning was whether the statements were fact or opinion, because an honest opinion defence under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 requires the statement complained of to be recognisable as opinion.

Videos 1 and 2 were statements of fact.

Videos 3 and 4 were also treated as statements of fact in context.

The practical consequence was straightforward. If the defendant wanted to defend the publications, he had to prove that the imputations were substantially true.

The defendant’s denial of responsibility for Videos 3 and 4

A significant issue was whether the defendant was responsible for the two videos on the Jessi account. The defendant’s position was that he had published only Videos 1 and 2 on his own account, and that he had nothing to do with the Jessi account.

The court accepted the claimant’s case that there was a compelling circumstantial basis to infer that the defendant was behind the Jessi account. The features relied upon included:

The Jessi videos used the same footage.

The videos had the same presentational style.

The Jessi account followed the defendant’s account.

Evidence of motive to publish anonymously.

The Jessi account was deleted after a letter of claim.

The judge concluded that it was more likely than not that the defendant was responsible for publishing Videos 3 and 4.

The defence of truth

The defendant pleaded a defence of truth under section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013, which requires the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.

Legal framework

The judge summarised the applicable principles.

The court’s factual findings on truth

The truth defence was founded on the assertion that Mr Ali made the racist remark. The judge rejected the truth defence in emphatic terms, finding that the defendant had not proved any of the key allegations and that the racism allegation had been fabricated.

The alleged remark was inherently implausible.

Colleague evidence supported Mr Ali’s account.

Earliest opportunities to complain did not include the allegation.

The defendant’s story shifted over time.

Mr Shah’s account was inconsistent.

Other false allegations were made.

Harassment and victimisation allegations

The judge rejected these allegations as well.

Serious harm: inference and evidence

The legal test

Under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm.

Serious harm by inference

Video 1: 17,300 views

Video 3: 74,900 views

Video 4: 54,900 views

Evidence of actual harm

Numerous comments received.

Identified at work.

Challenged and called racist.

Social consequences.

Damages: assessment, calculation and basis

The functions of damages in libel

Consolation for distress.

Repair to reputation.

Vindication.

Aggravation

Aggravating conduct increased damages.

The award

The court awarded £50,000 damages.

Practical observations

Courts treat racism allegations as serious.

Context determines fact vs opinion.

Anonymity is not a safe harbour.

Call to action

If you would like advice on a potential defamation claim, Carruthers Law can assist. Please telephone 0151 541 2040 or 0203 846 2862, or email the firm. You can also read more about our services here: Defamation solicitors.