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

The High Court in the Media and Communications List determined a libel claim arising from four TikTok videos accusing the claimant of racist conduct. The court held that the defendant was responsible for all four publications, including two posted through a separate TikTok account, that the videos conveyed defamatory factual allegations, that the defence of truth failed, and that the publications caused or were likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation. The claimant was awarded £50,000 in damages and a permanent injunction, and the court indicated that a suitably worded statement under section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013 should be considered at the consequentials stage.

Summary of the case and key facts

The claimant, Mr Jahangir Ali, and the defendant, Mr Adnan Hussain, both lived in Sheffield and were of Pakistani Muslim background. Mr Ali had worked at Ponds Forge International Sports Centre in Sheffield for approximately thirty years and had served as a receptionist there for the previous nine years.

The defendant was a customer of the gym and maintained a significant presence on TikTok. Through that platform he portrayed himself as exposing conduct which he alleged to be discriminatory or unfair.

The dispute arose from an incident on 4 April 2023. The defendant attended the leisure centre with a friend, Mr Babar Shah, but was unable to access the gym because his wristband did not operate. Staff believed that the defendant had entered the gym by using another customer’s access. A brief interaction then occurred at the reception desk.

The defendant alleged that during this exchange Mr Ali made a racist remark. Mr Ali denied that any such words were spoken and maintained that the defendant had behaved in a rude and aggressive manner.

After the incident the defendant used his mobile telephone to film Mr Ali. That footage later appeared in four TikTok videos which became the subject of the claim.

The publications and the meanings found by the court

Two of the videos were published on a TikTok account which the defendant accepted he controlled. A further two videos were subsequently published on a different account styled @jacko1909 with the username “Jessi”. The defendant denied any involvement with that account.

The court determined the ordinary and natural meaning conveyed by each video and concluded that the meanings were those pleaded by the claimant. The meanings found were as follows.

Video 1 conveyed the meaning that Mr Ali had racially abused and victimised the defendant.

Video 2 conveyed the meaning that Mr Ali had racially abused, harassed and victimised the defendant.

Video 3 conveyed the meaning that Mr Ali is a racist.

Video 4 conveyed the meaning that Mr Ali is a racist.

Although the defendant did not formally dispute these meanings, the judge nevertheless carried out his own determination of meaning, particularly in light of the fact that the defendant appeared as a litigant in person.

Whether the meanings were defamatory

The court held that the meanings found were plainly defamatory at common law. The applicable test was whether the publications would tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society and whether the seriousness threshold was crossed by having a substantially adverse effect on the way in which others would treat the claimant.

The judge observed that allegations that a person has racially abused another individual, or that a person is racist, are inherently grave allegations. Such imputations are capable of causing serious reputational harm both socially and professionally.

Fact or opinion

An important issue in the case was whether the statements complained of were statements of fact or statements of opinion. This distinction is significant because the defence of honest opinion under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 is only available where the statement complained of is recognisable as opinion.

The court held that Videos 1 and 2 were statements of fact.

Videos 3 and 4 were also treated as statements of fact when viewed in their full context.

The consequence was that the defendant could only defend the publications by establishing that the allegations conveyed were substantially true.

Responsibility for the Jessi account publications

A substantial issue in the case concerned whether the defendant was responsible for the two videos published on the Jessi account. The defendant maintained that he had published only the first two videos and denied any involvement with the Jessi account.

The court accepted the claimant’s case that the evidence provided a compelling basis to infer that the defendant was responsible for those publications. Among the matters relied upon were the following.

The videos published on the Jessi account used the same footage.

They were presented in a similar style.

The Jessi account followed the defendant’s main account.

There was evidence suggesting a motive to publish anonymously.

The Jessi account was deleted shortly after the defendant received the claimant’s letter of claim.

Taking these matters together, the judge concluded that it was more likely than not that the defendant had published Videos 3 and 4.

The defence of truth

The defendant relied upon the statutory defence of truth under section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013. In order to succeed, the defendant was required to prove that the imputations conveyed by the publications were substantially true.

The court’s findings on truth

The defence was based on the assertion that Mr Ali had made the racist remark alleged by the defendant. The judge rejected that defence, concluding that the defendant had failed to establish any of the essential allegations and that the allegation of racism had been fabricated.

The judge regarded the alleged remark as inherently implausible. Evidence from colleagues supported the claimant’s account of events. The allegation of racist language did not appear in the earliest opportunities when the defendant complained. The defendant’s account altered over time, and the evidence of Mr Shah contained significant inconsistencies. The judge also found that other allegations advanced by the defendant were untrue.

Harassment and victimisation allegations

The additional allegations that the claimant had harassed or victimised the defendant were also rejected.

Serious harm

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 to the claimant’s reputation.

The court concluded that the serious harm requirement was satisfied. The judge drew an inference of serious harm from the scale of publication. One video had received approximately 17,300 views, while two others had received approximately 74,900 and 54,900 views respectively.

There was also direct evidence of harm. The claimant received numerous comments in response to the videos. He was recognised at work, confronted by members of the public and accused of racism. The judge accepted that these events demonstrated that the publications had materially affected the claimant’s reputation.

Damages

In assessing damages the court applied the established principles governing libel awards. Damages serve three principal functions: to compensate for distress, to repair the harm to reputation and to provide vindication.

The judge also found that aspects of the defendant’s conduct aggravated the injury to the claimant’s reputation.

Taking all matters into account, the court awarded damages in the sum of £50,000.

Practical observations

The decision illustrates several points of practical importance in modern defamation litigation. Allegations of racism are treated by the courts as inherently serious and capable of causing significant reputational harm. Whether a publication constitutes fact or opinion will depend upon the overall context in which the words are used. The case also demonstrates that attempts to distance oneself from anonymous or secondary social media accounts will not succeed where the evidence supports an inference that the defendant was responsible for the publications.