Jahangir Ali v Adnan Hussain

This is the trial of a libel claim relating to four videos which were published on Tiktok.

The Claimant (“Mr Ali”), and the Defendant (“Mr Hussain”), live in Sheffield and come from Pakistani Muslim backgrounds.

In April 2023, Mr Ali was working as a receptionist at the Ponds Forge International Sports Centre in Sheffield (“Ponds Forge”), a large leisure centre. Ponds Forge is operated by Sheffield City Trust (“SCT”), a health and wellbeing charity. Mr Ali had worked at Ponds Forge for about 30 years, including the last nine years as a receptionist.

Mr Hussain was a customer of Ponds Forge, where he used the gym. Mr Hussain has a profile as a social media personality. He runs a social media account on Tiktok under the username Adnan Hussain (@adnanhussainmodel) (the “Adnan Tiktok account”), on which he posts about his life and his daily encounters. One of the themes of Mr Hussain’s Tiktok posts are allegations that he has witnessed other people behaving in a racist, discriminatory or rude way towards him or other people. In his posts, Mr Hussain portrays himself as a consumer’s champion, calling out discriminatory behaviour wherever he encounters it.

On 4 April 2023, Mr Ali was working at the reception at Ponds Forge when Mr Hussain attended in order to use the gym, along with a friend Babar Shah. Mr Hussain’s wrist band didn’t work and he couldn’t open the entrance gates. What happened next is disputed, but reception staff believed that Mr Hussain had tailgated a female customer into the gym. Mr Hussain was subsequently called over to the reception desk where Mr Ali was working. There was a short interaction between Mr Ali and Mr Hussain, the content of which is the central factual dispute in this claim. Mr Ali alleges that Mr Hussain was shouting and overbearing and rude towards him and another person working at reception. Mr Hussain alleges that Mr Ali used racist language towards him, saying “All of you Asians do this anyway, why don’t you do it in your own country where you come from” (the “racist remark”). Mr Ali denies ever having said these words and asserts that Mr Hussain made this up. After they had spoken, Mr Hussain pulled out his mobile phone and started filming Mr Ali at the reception desk. That video footage would subsequently feature in the four Tiktok videos which are the subject of this claim.

Two of the four Tiktok videos were published on the Adnan Tiktok account and two of them were published on an account with the title @jacko1909 and the username Jessi (the “Jessi Tiktok account”). Mr Ali’s case is that Mr Hussain posted all four videos. Mr Hussain admits posting the two videos on the Adnan Tiktok account but denies posting the two videos on the Jessi Tiktok account.

On 5 April 2023, Mr Hussain published a video on Tiktok (“Video 1”). The video shows Mr Ali sitting behind his desk at the Ponds Forge reception, his head half turned away from the camera. Overlain on the video are the words:

“So I went to Ponds Forge Swim Centre and this guy known as Jay Ali racially abused me and victimised me”

The video was captioned

“Can someone advise what i [sic] should do? #victimizarse #fyp

#fyp”/ #foryoupage #foryoupageofficiall #challenge…”

On 5 April 2023, Mr Hussain published a further video containing the same footage of Mr Ali (“Video 2”), with the words:

“So was racially abused by Ponds Forge staff and then harassed + victimised + told cannot use the gym until investigation AGAINST THEIR staff JAY ALI is not (sic) over.”

The video was captioned

“#racist @bbcasianne…” (assumed to tag the BBC Asian Network @bbcasiannetwork).

On or around 10 May 2023, a video appeared on the Jessi Tiktok account (“Video 3”). The video contained the same footage as the First and Second 5 April Tiktoks, with the words:

“This guy is known as Jay Ali and works at Ponds Forge Sheffield. He’s racist!”

The video was captioned

“Spread awareness”

“#racially abused”, “#siv”, “#pondsforge”, “#sheffield”

On or around 25 May 2023, a further video appeared on the Jessi Tiktok account (“Video 4”). Again the video combined the same footage of Mr Ali as the previous videos, with the words:

“This guy is known as Jay Ali working at Ponds Forge and is racist [teary eye emoji]”

“#siv”, “#pondsforge”, “#sheffieldunited”, “#sheffieldcitytrust”, “#blm”

The question as to whether Mr Hussain published Videos 3 and 4 is the logical starting point for me, as if I were to find that he was not responsible for those publications that would be the end of Mr Ali’s case in respect of these Videos.

Mr Hussain’s position has always been that he did not publish them. In his Defence he stated, “The Defendant denies the accusation of operating a fake Tiktok account under the name “@jacko1909” or username Jessi. The Claimant has not provided evidence linking the Defendant to this account. Given the Defendant’s substantial following on his primary account, there would be no reason for him to use or create another account.” He maintained the same argument at trial.

Mr Ali says however that there is a strong circumstantial case that Mr Hussain was behind the anonymous Jessi account. Mr Ali relies on the following features of the case:

Mr Hussain argues that it’s relatively easy for somebody else to re-use video content on Tiktok and to overlay their own text and that anybody could be behind the Jessi account. There was no evidence before me about how Tiktok works except the Defendant’s assertions, but I will proceed on the basis most favourable to him and assume that what he says about how Tiktok works is true.

However, I consider that Mr Ali has presented a clear and compelling case for inferring that Mr Hussain was behind the anonymous Jessi Tiktok account. Mr Hussain had the motive for publicising the allegation that Mr Ali was a racist, as his admitted Tiktok videos demonstrate. The four videos do in my view have the same “house style” and there are striking similarities between them in terms of the allegations of racism against Mr Ali, the use of the same video footage shot by Mr Hussain, the same black and white font and the same background music. Mr Hussain’s telling exchange with Mr Snelling demonstrates that he was motivated to post anonymously as he knew that further posts under his own name would jeopardise any chance of his regaining gym membership. The fact that the Jessi posts were removed online following the Claimant’s letter of claim is just one additional feature adding to the same picture.

Mr Hussain did not challenge the similarities between the two videos on his own account and the two videos on the Jessi account, as these similarities are self-evident. Rather, his case was that he had no need to publish anonymously precisely because he had his own account. But his exchange with Mr Snelling shows that he did have a motive for publishing anonymously. Furthermore, his attempt to distance himself from the Jessi account at trial by claiming to have had no knowledge of it at all is wildly implausible given his self-evident interest in publicising these issues on Tiktok and the fact that his own Adnan account followed the Jessi account.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Hussain was responsible for publishing Videos 3 and 4 and he therefore needs to defend all four videos.

Mr Ali’s pleaded case on meaning is that, in their ordinary and natural and/or inferential meaning, the four videos meant and were understood to mean that:

Mr Hussain did not dispute the Claimant’s pleaded meanings in his Defence or at trial. Nonetheless, as he is a litigant in person it cannot simply be assumed that he would have been aware that it was open to him to challenge these meanings. Accordingly, I must form my own view as to whether these pleaded meanings are correct.

In most cases the court’s task at a preliminary issues trial is to identify the ordinary and natural meaning of the words complained of. This is the single meaning which the words complained of would convey to the hypothetical ordinary, reasonable reader of those words. No evidence is admissible on the natural and ordinary meaning save for the publication itself but the court may also take into account matters of general knowledge, described by Nicklin J as, “Matters of common knowledge: facts so well-known that for practical purposes everybody knows them” (Blake v Fox [2022] EWHC 3542 (KB), [2023] EMLR 12 at [25(i)]).

Applying this purely objective test, the court must enter into the mindset of the ordinary, reasonable reader. For this purpose, the courts have developed a series of well-established principles for deciding meaning in libel cases. The classic summary of these principles was given by Sir Anthony Clarke MR in Jeynes v News Magazines [2008] EWCA Civ 130 at [14], restated and elaborated by Nicklin J in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group [2019] EWHC 48 (QB) and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17, [2020] AC 593 at [35]-[38].

This is a straightforward exercise on meaning relating to four short publications. I am satisfied that the ordinary reasonable reader would understand the four Tiktok posts to bear the meanings pleaded by the Claimant.

The next question for me is whether the statements complained of are statements of fact or statements of opinion. The Claimant’s case is that all four statements are statements of fact. The Defendant’s Defence proceeds on the basis that these are statements of fact, which he defends with a truth defence. But again, I should form my own view.

The honest opinion defence is set out in s.3 of the Defamation Act 2013. The first condition for the defence, under s.3(2), is that “the statement complained of is a statement of opinion.”

The court’s approach to determining whether a statement is one of fact or opinion is summarised in Koutsogiannis at [16], which states (so far as relevant) that:

I agree with Mr Ali that the ordinary reasonable reader would understand the two 5 April Tiktoks (Videos 1 and 2) as statements of fact. They read as factual assertions about things Mr Ali is alleged to have done, namely racially abused, victimised and harassed the Claimant. The position in respect of the two Jessi Tiktoks (Videos 3 and 4) is less straight-forward. Ordinarily calling someone a racist is to express an opinion, or a value judgment about them: Blake v Fox [2023] EWCA Civ 1000. However, everything depends on the precise context in which the words are used. Here, the allegation that Mr Ali is a racist is unsupported by any other facts which would convey to the ordinary reasonable reader that it is an opinion. It is therefore a bare comment and must be defended as a statement of fact.

The test for whether a publication is defamatory at common law is set out in the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Corbyn v Millett [2021] E.M.L.R. 19, where Warby LJ (with whom Sharp P and Vos MR agreed) said at [9]:

“At common law, a meaning is defamatory and therefore actionable if it satisfies two requirements. The first, known as "the consensus requirement", is that the meaning must be one that "tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people generally." The Judge has to determine "whether the behaviour or views that the offending statement attributes to a claimant are contrary to common, shared values of our society": Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB), [2017] 4 WLR 68 [51]. The second requirement is known as the "threshold of seriousness". To be defamatory, the imputation must be one that would tend to have a "substantially adverse effect" on the way that people would treat the claimant: Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB), [2011] 1 WLR 1985 [98] (Tugendhat J).”

In my view accusing someone of racially abusing them or alleging that they are a racist will almost always be defamatory at common law. Such allegations will tend to lower Mr Ali in the eyes of right-thinking people generally and will tend to have a substantially adverse effect on the way people would treat him. Mr Hussain does not argue otherwise.

Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 provides that, “A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.”

The leading case is Lachaux v Independent Print Limited [2019] UKSC 27, [2020] AC 612. Lord Sumption, giving the judgment of the court, described the effect the statutory provision as follows at [14]:

“Secondly, section 1 necessarily means that a statement which would previously have been regarded as defamatory, because of its inherent tendency to cause some harm to reputation, is not to be so regarded unless it “has caused or is likely to cause” harm which is “serious”. The reference to a situation where the statement “has caused” serious harm is to the consequences of the publication, and not the publication itself. It points to some historic harm, which is shown to have actually occurred. This is a proposition of fact which can be established only by reference to the impact which the statement is shown actually to have had. It depends on a combination of the inherent tendency of the words and their actual impact on those to whom they were communicated. The same must be true of the reference to harm which is “likely” to be caused.”

The effect of Lachaux is summarised in the judgment of Warby LJ in Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321 at [32] as follows:

“The statute requires a claimant to go beyond proof of a defamatory tendency and to demonstrate as a fact, on the balance of probabilities that the publication caused (or was likely to cause) reputational harm that was serious.”

As Warby LJ went on to observe, the Supreme Court agreed that “it was possible to prove serious reputational harm by way of an inferential case”: [33]. Lachaux itself was an example of such a case, with the Supreme Court inferring serious reputational harm from “a combination of the meaning of the words, the situation of Mr Lachaux, the circumstances of the publication and the inherent probabilities”: [21].

In this case, Mr Ali invites me to find that serious harm has been caused to his reputation both by inference and through evidence of actual harm. In terms of the inferential case, Ms Walker-Parr points to the gravity of the allegations combined with the scale of publication of the videos: Video 1 received at least 17,300 views by 22 July 2024; Video 3 received at least 74,900 views and Video 4 received at least 54,900 views (by 4 December 2023).

The position in relation to Video 2 is that it was posted on 5 April 2023 and was deleted on or about 19 April 2023, so it was online about 14 days. There is no contemporaneous evidence about the scale of publication except an email from Mr Hussain dated 19 April 2023 stating that “there are hundreds of people that have already downloaded it and shared it”. Mr Ali invites me to infer that this is a significant under-estimate as other videos which appeared on his Tiktok page received thousands, not hundreds, of views.

It is true that, in general, Mr Hussain’s Tiktok videos generally receive many thousands of views (typically 15,000 or above from the screenshots I have seen). However, in some cases the videos had been online for months or years at the point in time that screenshots were taken establishing the number of views (as in the case of Videos 1, 3 and 4). I have no evidence about how views of Tiktok posts are typically distributed over time, or even if there is such a thing as a typical distribution pattern. In the circumstances I cannot accept the Claimant’s inferential case that Video 2 would have had 10,000-20,000 views in the first 14 days. However, the Defendant’s statement that hundreds of people had downloaded or shared the video is not the full picture and it seems likely that significantly more people would have viewed this video than the number of people who proactively republished it. I am able to infer that Video 2 would have been viewed by 3,000 people in its 14 days online.

Mr Ali also relies on actual consequential harm to his reputation arising from the Videos. The Claimant’s evidence is that, among other things, in the week following the publication of the two videos on Tiktok he received about 20 comments about them from various people; that customers at the gym identified him as the person in the video on a number of occasions; that about one week after Video 2 a longstanding customer of Ponds Forge of Afro-Caribbean heritage upbraided him with a comment that “she did not expect this from him after all these years”; that he was called a “fucking racist” by a customer attending Ponds Forge (which had never happened before the videos were published) and that he was shunned in his local community, with people not inviting him to the local Mosque in the same way as before.

Mr Hussain invites me to reject Mr Ali’s case on serious harm. He pointed out that Mr Ali had not produced any witnesses to support this part of his case and that there are no screenshots of posts showing that people thought less of him. He also submitted to me that there is no other evidence that people thought less of Mr Ali. Mr Hussain also sought to cast doubt on whether Mr Ali had been shunned in his local community in the way that he described.

My view is that even excluding the evidence of actual harm, Mr Ali succeeds on this part of his case in relation to Videos 1, 3 and 4. The allegations that Mr Ali racially abused and victimised Mr Hussain in Video 1 and that he is a racist (Videos 3 and 4) are seriously defamatory. The scale of publication for Video 1 (17,300) is substantial, but for Video 3 (74,900) and Video 4 (54,900) it is high. I have no hesitation in concluding that I should draw an inference of fact that publication of these highly defamatory allegations on this scale was likely to cause serious harm to the Claimant’s reputation.

Video 2 is less straightforward, but it still relates to a really serious allegation which has been published to 3,000 people. Furthermore, the Claimant’s evidence about the reaction of people in the days following the publication of Videos 1 and 2 does show that he suffered some actual reputational harm in his local community. Although it is not possible to disaggregate the impact of Video 1 and Video 2 as they were published on the same day, it seems likely to me that many people would have viewed both videos, which were posted on the same account with the same subject matter on the same day. In the circumstances, I do find that Video 2 has caused, or is likely to have caused, Mr Ali serious reputational harm.

In his Defence dated 11 October 2024 Mr Hussain advances a truth defence. His pleaded case is summarised at paragraph 8 in these terms:

“During the discussion at the gym’s reception, the Claimant, Jay Ali, made derogatory, belittling and racially offensive remarks towards the Defendant, witnessed by Mr Shah, who was present with Mr Hussain at the time.”

Further details are pleaded at paragraphs 13-15 as follows:

“Mr Hussain left the gym to go to the reception, where he was encountered by Jay Ali. Mr Hussain was accompanied by Mr Shah. At 16:46 pm, Mr Shah then left to get his band checked and upon return, with Mr Shah present, Mr. Jay Ali at 16:49 pm made the racist remarks to the defendant.

During this time, Mr Jay Ali spoke to Mr Hussain in an aggressive manner, belittling him throughout the exchange. Mr Hussain (being in a similar situation before) took out his phone to record however Mr Jay Ali had already made the racist slurs which of course he is aware of.

Whilst Mr. Jay Ali made racist remarks, neither was his colleague that called Mr Hussain out of the gym, neither was Ms Thornton neither was Mr. Allen anywhere near the desk where the conversation took place between Mr. Jay Ali, Mr Hussain and Mr Shah.”

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides as follows:

“It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.”

A number of principles may be drawn from the authorities, which I would summarise as follows:

In addition, by reason of s.2(3) of the Defamation Act 2013, where there is more than one defamatory imputation, the defence will not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant’s reputation.

I should record that Mr Hussain has made a counterclaim against Mr Ali, which claim has been stayed pending the outcome of this trial. The allegations in that claim are not relevant to the present case and accordingly I refused both parties permission to rely on those parts of their evidence that dealt with it. I also refused Mr Hussain permission to cross-examine Mr Ali about the issues raised in that claim. The one point of potential relevance went to credibility. Mr Hussain contended that Mr Ali had lied in his witness statement where he had stated that he had not met Mr Hussain previously and that in fact they had met previously in a different context. Mr Ali accepted that this was the case, explaining that the other context was so different that he had not recognised Mr Hussain. I took this into account when assessing Mr Ali’s credibility as a witness, but ultimately it did not affect my conclusions about the credibility of his evidence.

The Claimant also relies on a hearsay statement of Steve Gibson and has served a Hearsay Notice. In considering the weight to be attached to such evidence, I must have regard to the Civil Evidence Act 1995, s.4: “any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence” including the factors set out in s.4(2), namely:

Ryan Pinder, a legal representative for Mr Ali, explains in his witness statement that Mr Gibson was fully involved in the preparation of his witness statement and provided oral confirmation that the witness statement was accurate, but since has been unavailable to sign it.

At the relevant time, Mr Gibson worked for Sheffield International Venues, a subsidiary of Sheffield City Trust. He was asked by Mr Hamilton to carry out an investigation into the allegation made by Mr Hussain on 6 April 2023, which was that Mr Ali had called him and Mr Shah “idiot Pakis”. In the course of the investigation Mr Gibson interviewed Mr Ali, Ms Thornton and Mr Shah and the transcripts of these interviews are exhibited. No point has been taken as to the accuracy of those transcripts. In addition, Mr Gibson secured and viewed CCTV footage showing the reception of Ponds Forge at the time that Mr Hussain and Mr Shah were coming down the stairs to leave. His evidence that the CCTV showed that there were no customers at the reception at that time is corroborated by Mr Hamilton, who also viewed the footage. No point is taken by Mr Hussain as to what that CCTV footage shows. Mr Gibson also gives evidence about Mr Hussain’s Tiktok video about Mr Hamilton, which is again addressed in Mr Hamilton’s evidence and the fact of which is not disputed. Mr Gibson’s investigation found there was no evidence to support the claim of racism.

This whole case turns on two central disputes of fact: (1) whether Mr Ali said the “racist remark” to Mr Hussain during the course of their interaction at the reception of Ponds Forge on 4 April 2023 and (2) whether Mr Ali repeatedly called Mr Hussain on his mobile phone or after 5 April 2023 using a withheld phone number demanding that Mr Hussain take down the 5 April Tiktok video, which is the harassment alleged by Mr Hussain.

Mr Ali’s three witnesses for the trial were himself, Ms Katie Thornton, who was working at the neighbouring reception desk at Ponds Forge on 4 April 2023 and Mr Ian Hamilton, who was the general manager of Ponds Forge at the time and also involved in the events on the day.

Mr Ali gave a detailed description of the events on the day. What follows is my summary of the most relevant facts.

Mr Ali’s evidence is that he was working at the lower reception at Ponds Forge on 4 April 2023, along with his colleague Katie Thornton. He was working on the workstation closest to the CCTV/alert screen and Ms Thornton was working on the workstation closest to the door, about 1.5 metres away.

He saw the CCTV/alert screen flash red which indicated to him that there was an issue with someone trying to gain access to the gym facilities. On the CCTV footage, they could see that a man was trying to activate the barriers with his wristband but couldn’t get in (Mr Hussain), and that another man was with him (Mr Shah). His evidence was that there can be many different reasons why a wristband doesn’t work and that the screen does not tell the reception staff what the reason for the restriction is.

When a wristband doesn’t work at the entrance to the facilities, there is a large screen at the barrier which displays a message to the customer with the words “Please report to reception”. However, it appeared to him that the two men had waited for a female customer to enter the gates before following her through. Mr Ali later accepted in his evidence that what the CCTV showed was Mr Hussain allowing a female customer to use her wristband to open the gates and then entering before her, and that in fact Mr Shah had used his own wristband to enter.

At the time, however, he suspected both men of entering by tailgating and he therefore radioed the duty manager, Chris Allen. He briefed Mr Allen on the situation and Mr Allen then left him and returned a few moments later with Mr Hussain.

Initially, Mr Hussain was interacting with Ms Thornton at her desk as Mr Ali was dealing with another customer. However, Mr Ali became concerned that when Ms Thornton explained to Mr Hussain that his account was frozen he became aggressive towards her, shouting over her and telling her she didn’t know what she was talking about. Mr Hussain was leaning over Ms Thornton while he shouted at her, and she was leaning back in her chair trying to get distance from him.

Mr Ali was concerned that Ms Thornton was very uncomfortable, so he went over to her desk to help her. He then took a look at Mr Hussain’s account details. He saw that Mr Hussain’s account had been frozen and told Mr Hussain that it been frozen by the membership team for three months. Mr Hussain then began to shout at him and told him he had dealt with the membership team, that his membership freeze was for Ramadan and the membership team had told him he could still use the facilities for some time.

Mr Ali then said to Mr Hussain words along the lines of, “Ramadan is only for one month, is it right that you want three months?” Mr Hussain confirmed that he had asked for a three month freeze.

Mr Ali’s evidence was that membership issues such as these are not dealt with by the reception team, but by the membership team. He therefore told Mr Hussain that there was nothing that he could do about the frozen membership, and that he needed to contact the membership team, and that if he wanted to access the gym that day, he would have to pay the daily fee. Mr Hussain cut him off aggressively in the same way that he had cut off his colleague, and was adamant that he had been told that he could use the gym until 8th April 2023. Mr Ali checked the account notes again but there was no indication that this was the case and in his long experience of working at Ponds Forge he was not aware of any occasion where a freeze had been applied in the way that Mr Hussain was suggesting.

Mr Hussain kept talking over him. He wanted to complain about his treatment at reception and he told Mr Ali that his father was a high profile figure. Mr Ali told him that he couldn't help him and asked Chris Allen to deal with him and take him away from reception. Mr Ali’s evidence was that Ms Thornton was next to him throughout the time that he spoke with Mr Hussain. To the best of his recollection, Mr. Allen was also close to him throughout his interaction with Mr Hussain. He couldn't remember when Mr Allen went to get Mr Shah from the gym area however, he clearly remembered that during the time he was speaking with Mr Hussain, Mr Shah was standing behind him, and Mr. Allen was there as well.

Mr Ali's evidence was that the direct contact he had with Mr Hussein was around a minute long. There was never a moment when Mr Hussain and he were alone. Another member of Ponds Forge staff was always close by, and within earshot.

Mr. Allen then took Mr Hussain over to the left which was a few metres away down the corridor from the reception. Mr Ali went back to his desk and resumed serving customers.

When Mr Shah arrived at reception, Mr Ali scanned his band and it was fine. Mr Ali described Mr Shah as being very friendly with Ms Thornton and him and having apologised for Mr Hussain’s behaviour and even laughed about the way that he had acted. He remembered him saying words along the lines of “I don't know why he went off like that” while laughing and smiling. After this, Mr Shah went over to where Mr. Allen was speaking with Mr Hussain.

Shortly afterwards, Mr Ali's attention turned to Mr Hussain again when he said words that sounded like, “I'm recording this.... You're a racist”. Mr Hussain then started to record or live stream him on his phone, saying that he was going to show everyone. He said, “wait until I put this on TikTok…. You don't know who I am!”

Mr Ali asked him to stop filming and Mr. Allen did the same but Mr Hussain refused. He told them it was a public place and that he could do what he wanted and continued to shout about how aggressive the reception staff had been. Mr. Allen then took Mr Hussain away from reception so that Mr Ali could start helping other customers again.

In cross-examination Mr Ali was asked why he had brought defamation proceedings against Mr Hussain. He said that his requests to Mr Hussain to take the video down were always denied and he felt he had no choice but to bring legal action. He had never intended that matters would go this far.

It was put to him that he could not hear the initial conversation between Mr Hussain and Ms Thornton. Mr Ali said that he could hear how aggressive it was getting and although he did not catch every word as he was initially serving another customer, he heard Mr Hussain call Ms Thornton “stupid”.

During cross-examination, Mr Ali denied having ever behaved in a racist manner towards Mr Hussain and denied ever having said the words attributed to him. His evidence was that he found the words extremely offensive and would never have used them. These were his exact words:

“The wording you used for me as an Asian first born generation is disgusting because it takes me back to when my parents couldn't speak English in the 70s when it was the norm for people to call us that. It takes me back to childhood when my parents first moved here, we would walk in the city centre and people would say that kind of thing to us. Takes me back to that time so words like that coming out of someone's mouth is disgusting those words are unacceptable.”

Mr Ali also denied ever having made threatening phone calls to Mr Hussain and having threatened him to remove the TikTok video. His evidence was that he had not made any attempt to contact him since the incident, let alone threaten him. It was put to him in cross-examination that he had got access to Mr Hussain’s mobile telephone number from the customer information at Ponds Forge. Mr Ali's evidence was that he hadn’t done this and that only the membership team or the managers at Ponds Forge could access that kind of customer information. He said that logging in leaves a footprint and he had never logged into Mr Hussain’s customer information.

Katie Thornton is a white woman from a mixed race family. She supported Mr Ali's evidence. She said that she had known Mr Ali for about three or four years and they had a really good working relationship. She described Mr Ali as being very popular with Ponds Forge staff and customers.

Ms Thornton said that when Mr Hussain was brought over to her by Mr. Allen she looked at Mr Hussain's account information and saw that his account had been frozen. She then explained to Mr Hussain that this was why his band had not worked. She told Mr Hussain that if he wanted to go into the gym that day that he could, but that he would need to either pay to use it on a pay as you go basis, or pay to unfreeze his account. Mr Hussain reacted very aggressively. He shouted at her, spoke over her, and began to lean over the desk. He did not let her finish the sentence, and although she tried to reiterate the company policy and process to allow him to access the facilities, he kept talking over her, telling her she was wrong and that she didn't know what she was on about. She says she didn't feel safe.

Her evidence was that Mr Ali was very polite to Mr Hussain, but Mr Hussain was shouting and telling them that neither of them knew what they were doing and that he wanted a refund. Mr Hussain said that he had paid over the phone and that he would ask to unfreeze his account and get a refund for the sum he had paid. Her evidence was that Mr Hussain did not want to have to pay to unfreeze his account or access the gym.

Ms Thornton said she never heard Mr Ali say the racist remark. She said that while she was flustered because of Mr Hussain shouting at her, she could hear everything that Mr Ali was saying. He didn't say anything racist to Mr Hussain and he didn't use the words attributed to him.

Her evidence was that throughout the interaction, Mr. Allen was standing very close and within earshot as well. At no point was any racist remark made to Mr Hussain. The only allegation of discrimination that Mr Hussain made at the time was in respect of a disability.

Her evidence was that Mr Hussain did not calm down but was getting angrier, so she asked Mr Allen to move him away from the desk to somewhere more private, so that he could calm down. They also had other customers coming through that needed to be dealt with. With hindsight she wished that the discussions with Mr Hussain had happened more privately from the outset, but at the time things escalated so quickly that there was simply no opportunity to do this.

Ms Thornton gave evidence of witnessing Mr Hussain filming Mr Ali. Mr Ali was imploring Mr Hussain not to film him. Mr Hussain was saying, “this is Jay Ali he works at Ponds Forge” and he was getting very close to Mr Ali's face. She couldn't remember the exact words but her recollection was that Mr Hussain was saying words along the lines of “he's being racist to me”.

It was put to her in cross-examination that her evidence could not be trusted as she had a close friendship with Mr Ali and that the staff would be expected to support each other. Ms Thornton’s response was that although friendships are important telling the truth in court is more important and that she had given a true account of events.

It was also put to her that she could not hear the conversation between Mr Hussain and Mr Ali and the racist remark Mr Ali said to Mr Hussain. Ms Thornton’s response was that although she was dealing with other customers “if anything like that was said I’d have heard it”. It was also put to her that she had exaggerated the events of the day. She denied this, saying she had been “terrified” of Mr Hussain that day.

Ian Hamilton was the general manager of Ponds Forge at the relevant time (he has since retired). He is black and grew up in England. He said that on various occasions, particularly in the 1970s, he had been subjected to racism. He said, “I take allegations of racism very seriously, and find racist comments about any race or religion very offensive. I empathise with people who are subject to racism, having experienced it myself.”

On 4 April 2023, Mr Hamilton attended the reception following the incident, by which time Mr Shah and Mr Hussain were using the gym. He was told by Mr Ali and Ms Thornton that Mr Hussain had been very aggressive towards them. Mr Ali said he had stepped in to try and assist, because he could see that Mr Hussain was intimidating Ms Thornton.

Mr Hamilton then went into the gym to ask Mr Hussain and Mr Shah their side of the story. They explained to him that Mr Hussain had been refused access to the gym, but that he was a member. Racism was not mentioned. Mr Hamilton told Mr Hussain and Mr Shah that he wished to speak to them after they had finished their session in the gym.

Mr Hussain and Mr Shah then joined Mr Hamilton in his office. Mr Hamilton had not, at this point, seen an email sent to him by Mr Hussain at 5:32pm in which he stated, in respect of Mr Ali and Ms Thornton, that “They were rude, aggressive and victimised me due to being a disabled person and Pakistani origin. I will not take this never."

Mr Hussain alleged that the staff on reception had been rude to him and embarrassed him by addressing him in a public setting (reception) about his membership.

Mr Shah was friendly throughout the meeting and kept trying to manage Mr Hussain when he started to raise his voice. Mr Shah also said he was embarrassed by the issue being addressed by the reception team in a public area. At no point during this meeting did Mr Hussain or Mr Shah say that there had been a racist comment made to him by Mr Ali or Ms Thornton.

It was put to Mr Hamilton in cross-examination that Mr Hussain and Mr Shah had reported the racist remark to Mr Hamilton at their meeting in his office the same evening. Mr Hamilton denied that this was the case. He said he was someone who took racism allegations very seriously and that if a specific racist remark had been reported to him he would have acted on it immediately, as he did when Mr Hussain alleged by email on 6 April that he had been called an “idiot Paki”. He said that the complaint made to him on the day was that reception staff had been rude.

On 5 April, Mr Hussain again attended Ponds Forge and used the gym. He had been given permission by Jordan Race who worked at the reception. Ms Race explained that Mr Hussain had told him that Mr Hamilton had granted him permission to use the gym during the freeze in a phone call. Mr Hamilton hadn’t had any such phone call with Mr Hussain. Mr Hamilton then went to speak to Mr Hussain and told him he couldn’t use the gym. Mr Hamilton then spoke with the membership team and afterwards told Mr Hussain he would need to pay to unfreeze his membership. Mr Hussain denied having told Ms Race that Mr Hamilton had given him permission to use the gym.

On 6 April, Mr Hamilton received an email from Mr Hussain alleging that someone had witnessed Mr Ali say, when Mr Hussain and Mr Shah were walking down the stairs. “here come the 2 idiot Pakis”. This struck Mr Hamilton as odd, as Mr Ali is Pakistani himself, nonetheless he asked for a full investigation.

On 6 April Mr Ali showed him Mr Hussain’s Tiktok post accusing Mr Ali of being racist. Mr Hamilton called Mr Hussain and asked him to remove the publication. Mr Hussain refused to do so and said he intended to come in to use the gym. When he attended with Mr Shah, Mr Hamilton told him he could not use the gym while the Tiktok post remained online. Mr Hussain became extremely aggressive, was shouting in reception and accusing Mr Hamilton of victimisation and that he had protected characteristics. Mr Hussain then took a photograph of Mr Hamilton and said he would publish another Tiktok, before leaving the building.

On or around 6 April, a member of staff showed Mr Hamilton a Tiktok post by Mr Hussain which included the photograph of Mr Hamilton taken the day before and accused Mr Hamilton of being a racist. Mr Hamilton was extremely offended. He rang Mr Hussain and asked him to take down the posts of him and Mr Ali. Mr Hamilton believes that shortly after that call Mr Hussain took down the Tiktok posts.

Mr Hamilton’s evidence was that after Mr Hussain’s complaint there was an investigation that was carried out by Steve Gibson, who worked for a different company in the same group of companies as SIV. Mr Gibson’s report found that there was no evidence of racism, and no evidence that Mr Hussain had been given permission to use the gym during the period while his account was frozen.

The decision not to uphold the complaint was communicated to Mr Hussain by email. His recollection was that shortly after that decision was sent to him Mr Hussain published a further video accusing Mr Ali of being a racist.

In preparing his evidence, Mr Hamilton was shown a copy of the police complaint made by Mr Hussain which alleges that Mr Ali said, “All you Asians do this anyway and why don’t you do it in your own country where you come from?” Mr Hamilton’s evidence was that at no point in his discussions with Mr Hussain did he allege that Mr Ali had used these words.

Mr Hamilton also viewed the CCTV footage at Ponds Forge. Although this footage does not record sound he was able to see that throughout the time Mr Ali was speaking to Mr Hussain there was always at least one member of Ponds Forge staff within very close proximity to him.

Mr Hussain’s account is that on 30 March 2023 he spoke with a customer service advisor about freezing his membership over Ramadan. He says he was told that although the freeze of his membership would take effect from 1 April 2023 that he could continue using the gym until 8 April 2023 before the freeze fully took effect.

On 4 April 2023, Mr Hussain attended Ponds Forge with his friend, Mr Babar Shah, with a view to using the gym. However, he could not get his wrist band to open the barrier to let him. He says that another member helped him to get access, but he was then called over to reception.

At the reception in front of Mr Hussain and Mr Shah Mr Ali said, “All of you Asians do this anyway. Why don’t you do it in your own country where you come from?” He says he found these words racially offensive, derogatory and deeply disturbing. He said this remark was made in the context of his membership band not working, even though he had been told previously that his band would remain active until 8 April 2023.

Mr Hussain’s evidence was that Ms Thornton was at her desk dealing with other customers and did not hear the exchange as she was not within earshot at the time the racist remark was made.

Mr Hussain says that he reported the matter immediately to the gym’s manager, Ian Hamilton, who apologised to him and assured him that he could continue using the gym until 8 April. He then went to use the gym with Mr Shah.

Later that evening, he and Mr Shah attended a meeting with Mr Hamilton. At that meeting he submitted a formal complaint, but he says that no action was taken to address the racial abuse he had suffered. This led him to post the first TikTok video on 5 April 2023. He said, “The video truthfully recounted the events and the racist abuse I suffered.”

Mr Hussain said that after the First Tiktok Video was posted, he came under pressure from the management of Ponds Forge, who told him that his membership would be revoked unless he deleted the post. This he refused to do “as the video was accurate and truthful”.

Mr Hussain said that following his complaint and the posting of the video he began receiving threatening calls from a “No Caller ID” number. He says that on these calls a male voice said, “My name is Jay Ali, delete my video on Tiktok”. He says he believes Mr Hussain had access to his personal details through the SIV database. He reported these incidents to South Yorkshire Police.

In cross-examination it was put to Mr Hussain that he was a social media influencer. He responded with, “I’d love to be one; I always wanted to be one.” He was questioned about the similarities between the four videos, about which I have already made findings. It was suggested to him that he used hashtags on his posts in order to increase the likelihood of videos showing on other people’s feeds. He said he didn’t know anything about this and this was too much detail for a dyslexic person to take in.

He was challenged on his account of the words he attributed to Mr Ali, but maintained that they had been said. It was put to him that he had not mentioned racism when he initially met Mr Hamilton downstairs. Mr Hussain denied that any meeting downstairs had taken place. It was further put to him that in the meeting with Mr Hamilton upstairs that he had made no mention of racism. Mr Hussain maintained that he had told Mr Hamilton the precise words he attributed to Mr Ali.

Mr Hussain was also questioned about how his account of what Mr Ali is alleged to have said has changed over time. I address this aspect of the cross-examination below.

Mr Babar Shah’s evidence supported Mr Hussain’s account of what happened on the day. The only significant difference was that Mr Shah said in his oral evidence that he was in the gym for a few minutes longer after Mr Hussain had been called to reception and that when he rejoined Mr Hussain he was already at the reception with the Claimant. Mr Shah’s evidence is that he then witnessed Mr Ali saying the racist remark to Mr Hussain.

It was put to Mr Shah in cross-examination that when he was interviewed by the investigator Steve Gibson on 5 May 2023 and was asked whether he had heard what Mr Ali had said to Mr Hussain that he had said he didn’t hear the words, only that it was a heated argument. Mr Shah said that he hadn’t wanted to say anything against Mr Ali or that could cause Mr Ali to lose his job. He also denied that this was an interview; he said it was only a “call”.

Mr Shah was also questioned about Ms Thornton’s evidence that he had been laughing at the reception and that this wouldn’t have been his reaction if he had witnessed a racial incident.

It was also put to Mr Shah that neither he nor Mr Hussain had mentioned the racist remark to Mr Hamilton in their meeting in his office on 4 April 2023. Mr Shah disputed this – he asserted that they “had raised the whole scenario with Mr Hamilton”.

On 4 April 2023 Mr Hussain and Mr Shah attended Ponds Forge with a view to using the gym. During the trial we watched the CCTV which shows the entrance gates looking outwards down the corridor through which customers approach the entrance. Mr Hussain and Mr Shah can be seen meeting each other outside the lockers in the corridor, where they greet each other with a hug. They hang around a while chatting while a couple of other customers enter through the entrance gates. Mr Hussain then approaches the gates and can be seen trying to use his wristband to open the gates numerous times, but the gates don’t open. Mr Hussain’s own evidence is that he tried 16 times. Mr Hussain then waits until a female customer arrives, who uses her wristband to open the gates. They exchange a couple of words and then Mr Hussain walks in front of the female customer through the gate, with her following him in.

A certain amount of time at trial was spent by Mr Hussain cross-examining Mr Ali, Ms Thornton and Mr Hamilton as to whether what Mr Hussain was doing was “tailgating”. Mr Ali’s evidence in his witness statement was that, viewing the CCTV from his monitor at reception – he thought Mr Hussain had followed another customer through the gates. Mr Ali was mistaken in this regard. It is clear from the CCTV footage that Mr Hussain entered first. However, it seems to me to be a matter of semantics not of substance whether what Mr Hussain did was “tailgating”. The fact is that his wristband didn’t work the 16 times that he tried it and he entered the gym not on his own wristband but on the wristband of the female customer who opened the gates and let him pass in front of her before the gates closed.

Mr Hussain has been using this gym for years – his membership record dates back to 2019. I accept Mr Ali’s undisputed evidence that when a wristband at the entrance gates does not open the gates there is a large screen nearby which tells customers, “Please report to reception”. Mr Hussain knew his wristband was not working and he must have been aware of the sign telling him to report to reception and that this is the normal process to be followed at the gym where he has been going for years. Yet he chose instead to enter the gym with the help of a friendly female customer who used her wristband and allowed him to pass in front of her. His protestations that he was not tailgating are a diversion – he knew perfectly well he was not entitled to enter the gym on another customer’s wristband, without a working wristband of his own.

Mr Hussain entered and started to use the gym, but was brought back to reception by Mr Allen. Mr Shah at this point was somewhat behind; all the witnesses agree that he arrived at reception some minutes after Mr Hussain. What happened when Mr Hussain came to the reception desk lies at the heart of this claim. Mr Hussain alleges that during their interaction at the reception desk Mr Ali said to him, “All of you Asians do this anyway. Why don’t you do it in your own country where you come from?” (the “racist remark”). Mr Hussain’s evidence is that this was witnessed by Mr Shah, but by nobody else. Mr Shah supports Mr Hussain’s account.

Mr Ali’s evidence is that Mr Hussain was angry and shouting at the reception, talking over his colleague Ms Thornton as she tried to explain why he couldn’t access the gym while his account was frozen. Mr Ali’s evidence is that he went to assist Ms Thornton at the neighbouring desk but that when he explained to Mr Hussain that his account was frozen for three months and that he would need to speak to membership about it, Mr Hussain shouted over him. Mr Ali’s evidence was that he would not, and did not, say the words that Mr Hussain attributes to him. Mr Ali’s evidence was that Ms Thornton was nearby and that she would have heard it if he had said words of that kind. Ms Thornton’s evidence supports Mr Ali’s account. So, in important respects, does the evidence of Mr Hamilton, although he was not a witness to the interaction between Mr Ali and Mr Hussain at the reception.

I am faced with two conflicting accounts of what happened between Mr Ali and Mr Hussain at the reception at Ponds Forge. I found Mr Ali to be a credible witness. He was softly spoken, careful in his answers and had a detailed recollection of the events on the day. He answered questions in cross-examination in a straight-forward manner. Ms Thornton was also a credible witness. She came across as someone with no axe to grind who was simply recounting the events of what had been, for her, a very stressful encounter with Mr Hussain. I was impressed with Mr Hamilton as a witness. Although now retired, he had held a managerial position at Ponds Forge and he spoke with real authority. He also answered questions in cross-examination with clarity and directness.

The evidence of Mr Hussain and Mr Shah was more problematic. At the request of Mr Hussain this hearing was held online on Teams and Mr Hussain and Mr Shah were in the same room while each was giving evidence. On a number of occasions the sound was muted by one of them and I gained the distinct impression that Mr Hussain was prompting Mr Shah during the course of his evidence. I am not able to make a definitive finding, but their behaviour was suspicious. Mr Hussain was for much of his evidence a straight-forward witness, but he was sometimes evasive and on a number of occasions he became visibly angry. My impression of him from his evidence was that he gets angry quite easily. Mr Shah looked like a reluctant witness who would rather be anywhere else in the world than giving evidence in court. But he managed to maintain a calm demeanour and he answered the questions put to him.

The starting point for me is the central allegation in this case, which is that Mr Ali said to Mr Hussain, “All of you Asians do this anyway. Why don’t you do it in your own country where you come from?” (the “racist remark”). The remark attributed to Mr Ali is decidedly odd, given that Mr Ali himself comes from Pakistan. This kind of remark is a cliché of what a white British racist might say to someone of Pakistani origin. Its inherent implausibility was put to Mr Hussain in cross-examination; his answer was that there are subtle forms of racism that exist between Asian people. That may be true, but that addresses the wider point of whether one Asian person can be racist to another, rather than the narrow point of whether it’s credible that one Pakistani man would say these words to another Pakistani man. That’s the real issue here and in my view, it is inherently implausible (although of course implausible things do sometimes happen).

Mr Ali’s evidence is that he never did, and never would, say these words to Mr Hussain or anyone else. Mr Ali was genuinely passionate in stating that as an Asian man such language is abhorrent to him and he would never use it. I found his evidence credible throughout but on this particular issue his evidence was compelling. His account is corroborated by the evidence of Ms Thornton, whose desk was only 1.5 metres away and who said she would have been in a position to hear these words had Mr Ali said them. It was put to Ms Thornton in cross-examination that she would naturally come along to support Mr Ali, but she made it clear that telling the truth was more important and I accept her evidence as truthful. Their evidence is consistent with the emails they wrote up about the incident the same day and the evidence they gave to Mr Gibson.

It should be recalled that Mr Shah arrived at the reception a few minutes after Mr Hussain. When Mr Shah was interviewed by Mr Gibson as part of his investigation on 5 May 2023, he said he saw that there was a “heated discussion” between Mr Hussain and Mr Ali and that Mr Ali had said something which upset Mr Hussain, but when asked by Mr Gibson, “Did you hear what he said?”, Mr Shah is recorded by Mr Gibson as responding, “I didn’t hear it from JA mouth, but it was a heated argument…” (JA being a reference to Mr Ali). However, in his witness statement dated 22 November 2024 Mr Shah asserted that he had heard Mr Ali say the racist remark.

In cross-examination, Mr Shah sought to deal with this change of position by asserting that his call with Mr Gibson was not an interview as such and further that he had not wanted to get Mr Ali in trouble. I reject those explanations. First, Mr Gibson makes it clear at the outset of the call that he is interviewing Mr Shah as part of a formal investigation into Mr Hussain’s complaint and that it is a follow up to a previous email setting up the call. Mr Shah was fully aware, at the time, that his answers were expected to be truthful. Secondly, Mr Shah has no difficulty now in making these allegations against Mr Ali. I find that Mr Shah’s original account to Mr Gibson in May 2023 was truthful - he did not hear what Mr Ali said to Mr Hussain – and his later assertion that he did hear the words is a lie. It follows that his evidence provides no support for Mr Hussain’s claim that Mr Ali made the racist remark.

Mr Shah’s behaviour on 4 April 2023 is also inconsistent with that of someone who heard Mr Ali say the highly offensive racist remark attributed to Mr Ali. According to Mr Ali and Ms Thornton, Mr Shah was laughing when he was at the reception desk and apologising on behalf of Mr Hussain. Mr Shah did not dispute this, but again resorted to his explanation that he didn’t want to get Mr Ali in trouble. But if he had just witnessed his friend being racially abused, it is hard to believe he would have been laughing. His behaviour on the day is consistent with Mr Hamilton’s evidence that, as reported to him in person at the time, this was initially a customer service complaint, not an allegation about racist language being used.

Mr Hamilton’s evidence is that when he met Mr Hussain and Mr Shah after the encounter at the reception desk, first in the gym itself and then later upstairs in his office, neither Mr Hussain nor Mr Shah actually alleged that Mr Ali had spoken these specific words. Mr Hamilton’s evidence is that in his initial meetings with Mr Hussain and Mr Shah the complaint was not about racism at all, but that Mr Hussain felt humiliated by the rude way the reception staff had dealt with him in front of everyone. Mr Hamilton said his understanding in his discussions with Mr Hussain and Mr Shah was that the complaint was a “customer service issue”.

Mr Hamilton’s evidence, as both a manager and a black man who personally experienced racism growing up, was that he takes any allegation of racism extremely seriously. Had either Mr Hussain or Mr Shah alleged that Mr Ali had spoken the words now attributed to him in his initial meetings with them, then he would have acted on it straightaway and ordered an investigation. This is what he in fact did when, two days later on 6 April, he received an email from Mr Hussain making an allegation of (different) racist words having been used. Mr Hamilton’s account is consistent with the account he gave to the investigator Steve Gibson.

Although general allegations of discrimination on the grounds of disability and race were made by Mr Hussain in his email to Mr Hamilton on 4 April 2023 at 5.32pm, and in his email to Mr Hamilton on 5 April 2023 at 10.43am, I am struck by the fact that the emails make no mention of the racist remark i.e. the specific words Mr Hussain attributes to Mr Ali. If Mr Ali had genuinely said the racist remark to Mr Hussain, I would expect it to have been recorded in these contemporaneous emails. It is a serious matter to make an allegation of racism against a public-facing employee like Mr Ali and I would expect such an allegation to be justified by specifics.

I accept Mr Hamilton’s evidence that neither Mr Hussain nor Mr Shah alleged on 4 April 2023 that Mr Ali had spoken the words later attributed to him. This is consistent with the fact that Mr Hussain’s contemporaneous emails make no reference to the racist remark. I also accept his evidence that in his initial meetings with Mr Hussain and Mr Shah the complaint was about rudeness by the reception staff, not racist language. That this was a major concern of Mr Hussain’s is evidenced by his email dated 5 April, where he complains about “being publicly humiliated and made to feel that I don’t belong here”. Accordingly, I find that Mr Hussain and Mr Shah lied to me when they asserted that they had complained of the racist remark to Mr Hamilton.

Two things happened subsequently on Tiktok that provide important insights into Mr Hussain’s credibility. The first occurred in response to Video 1, published on 5 April 2023, accusing Mr Ali of racially abusing, harassing and victimising Mr Hussain. It is noteworthy that, judging by the reactions of other Tiktok users which are in evidence, this assertion was greeted with considerable scepticism. Other Tiktok account holders pointed out that it’s easy to make general allegations of this kind, but where was the evidence and what precisely was Mr Ali alleged to have done. There was also an exchange between an account holder using the pseudonym “Rollin Trigga” and Mr Hussain. The exchange went like this:

I find this exchange highly telling. Mr Hussain knew that it was stretching credulity to claim that one Pakistani man had racially abused another Pakistani man and that accordingly people were questioning if this had really happened. He also knew that Mr Ali was Pakistani. But in this exchange, he chose to lie and say that he was “deffo” i.e. definitely Indian.

The second important credibility issue arose from a post by an anonymous Tiktok user called “K” who claimed, in response to Video 1, to have witnessed the incident. That person said he/she was present at the lower reception where she overheard Mr Ali say something when two Asian guys were walking down the stairs; it was something like “watch these two idiots now”. On 6 April, Mr Hussain sent Mr Hamilton an email alleging that someone had witnessed Mr Ali say, while he and Mr Shah came down the stairs, “here comes the two idiot Pakis”. In Mr Hussain’s re-telling, the allegation is converted from an allegation of general rudeness into an allegation of racist abuse.

I am satisfied that the allegation made by “K” is untrue. At Mr Hamilton’s request, this matter was thoroughly investigated by Steve Gibson. Mr Gibson was able to access and view the relevant CCTV footage. This showed that at the time Mr Hussain and Mr Shah came down the stairs at Ponds Forge there were no customers at the lower reception. The CCTV footage therefore proves that K’s account is untrue. Like a lot of allegations made online under the cloak of anonymity it was simply made up. But it is very telling, in my view, that Mr Hussain was prepared to adopt this allegation as his own and to repurpose it as a racist allegation. This is a lie that goes to the heart of the case as these were, originally, the racist words attributed by Mr Hussain to Mr Ali on 6 April 2023, two days after the incident.

The racist remark now attributed to Mr Ali made its first appearance as part of a police complaint brought by Mr Hussain against Mr Ali on 17 April 2023. As recorded in the police records, by this time Mr Hussain was asserting that Mr Ali said, “All of you Asians do this anyway. Why don’t you do it in your own country where you come from?” In cross-examination it was pointed out to him that this allegation was similar to a previous incident in February 2021 when Mr Hussain alleged on Facebook that a white lorry driver had racially abused him by saying, among other things, “Get back to your own country”. This incident had received a substantial amount of publicity previously, as the lorry driver had been prosecuted and convicted of a racially aggravated offence and Mr Hussain had been interviewed about it in the local media.

Mr Hussain was shown his previous Facebook post and it was put to him in cross-examination that he had repurposed the white lorry driver allegation in this case, knowing that this kind of allegation had received widespread publicity previously and hoping it would do the same here. Mr Hussain had no answer to this point, except to accuse Mr Ali’s legal team of lying. The two allegations are indeed similar and I consider it likely that this is the reason why Mr Hussain chose to attribute these specific words to Mr Ali.

Another important indication as to Mr Hussain’s credibility is the fact that after Mr Hamilton had refused to allow him to access the gym on 5 April 2023, Mr Hussain took a photograph of Mr Hamilton and posted a Tiktok video accusing Mr Hamilton of racism. Mr Hussain subsequently took that video down at Mr Hamilton’s request, but he did not challenge Mr Hamilton’s evidence about this issue or offer any explanation as to why he had made this false allegation against him. This demonstrates that Mr Hussain is ready and willing to make up false allegations of racism against other people just because he disagrees with something they have said or done.

Mr Hussain’s allegation that Mr Ali said “All of you Asians do this anyway. Why don’t you do it in your own country where you come from?” is another lie. These words are inherently implausible; Mr Ali credibly says he would never speak to another Pakistani man in that way; he is supported by his colleague Ms Thornton, who was present at the time and in a position to hear them; these words were not heard by Mr Shah (despite his later lie to the contrary); they were not reported at the time by Mr Hussain or Mr Shah and these words have the same theme as Mr Hussain’s earlier complaint against a white lorry driver which generated him widespread publicity.

Mr Hussain made up the racism allegation as an act of revenge for the perceived public humiliation of being called to reception and questioned about his frozen account. Publishing this allegation on Tiktok also served to further Mr Hussain’s ambition to be a social media influencer and his portrayal of himself as a consumer champion who calls out racism and discrimination, notwithstanding that in this case that portrayal was dishonest.

This brings me to the allegation of harassment, which I can deal with more concisely. The allegation is that Mr Ali repeatedly called Mr Hussain on his mobile phone or after 5 April 2023 using a withheld phone number demanding that Mr Hussain take down Video 1. Mr Ali is alleged by Mr Hussain to have said, “Mr name is Jay Ali, delete my video on Tiktok”.

Mr Hussain reported this allegation to South Yorkshire Police and Mr Hussain made great play of this fact, as if the existence of a crime reference number was somehow proof that the allegation was one of substance. In the event the police decided to take no further action and in my view Mr Hussain’s decision to report this to the police was an attempt to bolster a weak allegation, for which there is no evidence apart from Mr Hussain’s word that this is what happened.

I am satisfied that this allegation is untrue. First, it is inherently implausible that Mr Ali would have called Mr Hussain on a withheld number only to self-defeatingly identify himself as the caller in the way described. Secondly, Mr Hussain has not disclosed evidence of any withheld calls to his mobile phone in the relevant time period. Thirdly, there is no evidence Mr Ali has ever had Mr Hussain’s mobile number. Mr Hussain alleges that Mr Ali would have obtained his mobile phone number from Ponds Forge membership records, but Mr Ali denies this, pointing out that only managers and membership staff have access to this information. I accept Mr Ali’s evidence on this issue. Fourthly, I accept Mr Ali’s evidence that he did not make any such calls to Mr Hussain and that he has not instigated any further contact with him since the incident as he has no wish for any further dealings with him. Given how stressful Mr Ali has found dealing with Mr Hussain, I found that evidence entirely credible and given my findings on Mr Hussain’s credibility I naturally prefer Mr Ali’s evidence on this issue.

Finally, there is the allegation of victimisation, which Mr Hussain has not sought to defend in his Defence or at trial. I have also seen no evidence to support this allegation.

For all of the above reasons, Mr Hussain has not persuaded me that any of the allegations he made against Mr Ali are substantially true and his truth defence fails.

The main principles are helpfully summarised in Ms Walker-Parr’s skeleton argument. The principal remedy in a libel action is an award of general compensatory damages. Such damages serve three functions: to act as a consolation to the claimant for the distress suffered as a result of publication; to repair harm to reputation; and to act as vindication: See John v MGN Ltd [1997] Q.B. 586 at 607-608.

In assessing the appropriate level of damages for injury to reputation, the Court should have regard to the relevant principles and considerations collated by Warby J in Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226 (QB) at [20]-[21]. They include, but are not limited to, the gravity of the libel and extent of publication; the assertion of truth or refusal to retract or apologise; the scale of reputational harm; the impact of the libel on the Claimant, having regard to his role in society, the credibility of the Defendant and identity of publishees (particularly if known to the Claimant); the propensity of the allegations to percolate; the vindication offered by a reasoned judgment; and proportionality of any award. The financial means of the Defendant is not a consideration for the court when determining the correct figure.

Further, in deciding what sum is appropriate for those purposes the court will have regard to the level of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in cases of personal injury, and will treat the maximum award in that context as an effective cap on damages for defamation: Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321, [26] (Warby LJ).

Aggravated damages can be awarded where the Defendant’s behaviour has increased injury to feelings. Factors giving rise to an award of aggravated damages include: persisting with an unfounded assertion that the publication was true, refusing to apologise, or cross examining in an insulting manner: John v MGN, 607. The issue is not the state of mind of a defendant but the resulting increase in injury to feelings: Barron v Vines [21(4)], [22].

I take into account the following features of this case in deciding the appropriate level of damages, which shall include general and aggravated damages. First, an allegation of racist behaviour or being a racist is a serious attack on another person’s character. At the time Mr Ali was working as a receptionist dealing with members of the public and the allegation had the potential to be career-ending for him. It is also highly offensive to accuse a Pakistani man of using racist language against another Pakistani man. The allegations went viral, as Mr Hussain intended, with the videos being published to a large number of people. Mr Hussain published the allegations under his own name and anonymously in the Jessi Tiktok account, thereby increasing the reach of the allegations. He then lied about his involvement in the Jessi Tiktok account. While the allegations were treated sceptically by some Tiktok readers, given the scale of publication I infer that many people will have believed them.

In addition to the inference of reputational harm that arises from these serious allegations having been published on a wide scale, there is clear evidence that the publications had an actual negative impact on Mr Ali’s reputation and he was confronted with these allegations at work and in his neighbourhood, damaging his self-confidence when interacting with people in his local community.

The allegations against Mr Ali were baseless – Mr Hussain made them up as an act of revenge and as part of his attempt to become a social media influencer on Tiktok. The racism allegation was originally formulated as a general allegation of racial discrimination, but Mr Hussain then alleged that he had been called an “idiot Paki” before changing his account to the “why don’t you do it in your own country” allegation, which he had repurposed from a previous incident with a lorry driver. The unfounded nature of the allegations which Mr Hussain sought to defend as true is a significant aggravating factor. Mr Hussain defended the allegation through to trial on a truth defence. At trial, he cross-examined on the basis that Mr Ali and the witnesses supporting his account were part of a dishonest conspiracy against him.

Mr Ali’s claim form sought damages of up to £50,000, although the court can still make a larger award: CPR 16.3(7). In her skeleton argument for the trial, Ms Walker-Parr argued that damages of at least £50,000 were appropriate and cited a number of other recent damages awards by way of comparison, including Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321. Mr Hussain submitted that such an award would be too high.

Taking these matters into account, I am satisfied the right award in this case is £50,000 in damages. Comparisons with other libel awards are always tricky as the facts rarely align, but I am satisfied that this is the appropriate sum to console Mr Ali for the distress he has suffered, restore the harm to his reputation and vindicate his reputation in the eyes of the public.

I shall also grant Mr Ali a permanent injunction preventing Mr Hussain from repeating these or any similar defamatory allegations against him in the future, as I believe there remains a significant risk of repetition without such an order. Mr Ali also seeks an order under s. 12 of the Defamation Act 2013 requiring Mr Hussain to publish a summary of the judgment on his Tiktok account. I agree that the posting of a suitably worded statement on Mr Hussain’s Tiktok account would be an effective way of seeking to restore Mr Ali’s reputation in the eyes of Mr Hussain’s readers, and a proportionate interference with Mr Hussain’s Article 10 rights. I will hear submissions at the consequentials hearing as to the wording of the s.12 statement.