Jahangir Ali v Adnan Hussain

In a libel claim, the court must determine the single meaning conveyed to the hypothetical ordinary, reasonable reader by applying an objective test. A statement describing conduct may be fact, while an apparent value judgment may be treated as fact where it is a bare comment unsupported by facts indicating opinion. Serious harm under the Defamation Act 2013 may be established by inference from the meaning, circumstances and scale of publication, or by evidence of actual impact. A truth defence requires proof that the defamatory imputation, considered in its single meaning, is substantially true. Serious allegations of racism will ordinarily be defamatory. Damages may include general and aggravated damages, and publication of a judgment summary may be ordered where proportionate.

The claimant, a long-serving receptionist, brought a libel claim arising from four TikTok videos accusing him of racial abuse and racism. The defendant admitted publishing two videos but denied publishing two further videos from an anonymous account. The court first determined that the defendant was responsible for all four publications. It then considered the meanings conveyed, whether the allegations were fact or opinion, defamatory tendency, serious harm, and the defendant’s truth defence. The central factual issue was whether the claimant had made a racist remark during an encounter at a leisure centre. A further issue concerned alleged harassment and victimisation.

1. Responsibility for publication. The circumstantial evidence established that the defendant was more likely than not responsible for the two videos published through the anonymous account. The similarities in footage, style, music and allegations, the account’s connection with the defendant’s account, his motive for anonymous publication, and the later deletion of the account formed a clear and compelling case.
2. Meaning and fact or opinion. Applying the approach in Jeynes v News Magazines [2008] EWCA Civ 130, as restated in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group [2019] EWHC 48 (QB) and reaffirmed in Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17, the ordinary reasonable reader would understand the publications to bear the pleaded meanings. The first two videos conveyed factual allegations of racial abuse, harassment and victimisation. Although calling someone a racist ordinarily expresses an opinion, in this context the allegation was a bare comment and therefore a statement of fact, applying Blake v Fox [2023] EWCA Civ 1000.
3. Defamatory meaning and serious harm. The allegations satisfied both the consensus and seriousness requirements identified in Corbyn v Millett [2021] E.M.L.R. 19. Applying Lachaux v Independent Print Limited [2019] UKSC 27, serious reputational harm could be inferred from the gravity of the allegations, the circumstances and the extent of publication. Serious harm was established for each video, including Video 2, where actual reputational harm supplemented the inferential case.
4. Truth defence. Under sections 2 and 2(3) of the Defamation Act 2013, the defendant failed to prove that the sting of the publications was substantially true. The court rejected the evidence that the racist remark, harassment or victimisation had occurred.
5. Remedy. Applying John v MGN Ltd [1997] Q.B. 586 and Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226 (QB), the court awarded £50,000 in general and aggravated damages. It granted a permanent injunction and ordered consideration of a judgment summary on the defendant’s TikTok account under section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013.

First-instance judgment. No prior decision or appellate stage was stated in the judgment.