Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v Syed Tauqeer Bukhari

Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v Syed Tauqeer Bukhari

The Defendant's publication of five tweets and three videos caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation in England and Wales, satisfying the threshold for libel under Defamation Act 2013 s1. The Defendant's Twitter campaign constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment under PfHA, with effects experienced by the Claimant in England and Wales. The Defendant's conduct was not reasonable; no substantive defence was established. Damages awarded for libel and harassment, but no injunction granted due to lack of real risk of repetition.

Parties
Claimant: Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari; Defendant: Syed Tauqeer Bukhari
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim for libel and harassment partially allowed; injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Harassment Via Social Media, Damages, Injunctions, Jurisdiction
Defamation Harassment Media Law Libel Serious Harm Harassment Via Social Media Damages Injunctions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari

Claimant

Syed Tauqeer Bukhari

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of tweets/videos caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation under Defamation Act 2013 s1
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's Twitter campaign constituted harassment under Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's conduct was reasonable under PfHA s1(3)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's publication of five tweets and three videos caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation in England and Wales, satisfying the threshold for libel under Defamation Act 2013 s1. The Defendant's Twitter campaign constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment under PfHA, with effects experienced by the Claimant in England and Wales. The Defendant's conduct was not reasonable; no substantive defence was established. Damages awarded for libel and harassment, but no injunction granted due to lack of real risk of repetition.

Court Disposition

Claim for libel and harassment partially allowed; injunction refused.

Orders

  • Claimant awarded £40,000 for libel (including aggravated damages)
  • Claimant awarded £3,000 for harassment