On 19 November 2025, the High Court handed down its decision in this case, bringing to an end a long-running and highly contentious dispute between two former business associates in the Asian restaurant and catering sector.
Mrs Justice Steyn DBE granted summary disposal of Mohammed Abdul Munim’s defamation claim; an outcome that included a declaration of falsity, an apology order, £10,000 in damages, and an injunction preventing further repetition of the statements. Although the defendant, Hafizur (Rimon) Rahman, had lawyers on record, neither he nor his legal representatives attended the hearing. In fact, the Defendant’s lawyers wrote to the court shortly before the hearing confirming that they would not be attending as they had not received funds to brief counsel nor had they received instructions to attend.
Below, we break down the key points, background, and implications of this important judgment.
Background: a business partnership gone bad
The origins of the dispute date back to May 2018, when Rahman published a series of Facebook posts accusing Munim of:
- Stealing his idea and intellectual property for the Asian Restaurant Takeaway Awards (ARTA);
- Stealing or cheating him out of his business; and
- Being a “crook,” “thief” and “dishonest exploitative” individual.
These posts were widely visible on both Rahman’s own Facebook page (open to the public) and the account of broadcaster Sufi Miah, reaching audiences largely within the British Bangladeshi and Asian restaurant communities.
Munim issued a libel claim in July 2018. However, the case quickly became entangled with two related claims:
- A copyright claim brought by Rahman, alleging ownership of the ARTA logo and trophy design; and
- A company law claim, alleging unfair prejudice in share transfers within Le Chef Plc.
These three actions were consolidated. The copyright and company claims were tried first, and Munim won decisively.
Previous findings that shaped this case
At the core of this defamation ruling was the earlier decision, in this case upheld partly on appeal in 2024.
Key findings from that judgment included:
- Rahman was an employee of a company called Le Chef, not an independent contractor;
- The ARTA logo and trophy were created collaboratively, with input from multiple people and copyright vested in Le Chef, not Rahman;
- Rahman had validly consented to the transfer of most of his shares in Le Chef to Munim in exchange for significant personal investment into the struggling business; and
- Neither the copyright nor the unfair prejudice allegations had any merit.
These findings directly undermined Rahman’s defence of truth, one of the main defences available in defamation law.
Why summary disposal was granted
Under Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1996, a court can grant summary judgment in a defamation claim if:
- The defendant has no defence with a realistic prospect of success; and
- There is no other compelling reason for a trial.
Mrs Justice Steyn held that this threshold was comfortably met.
1. Reference to Munim was clear
Although Rahman tried to argue that some posts were not “about” Munim, the court disagreed. Munim’s photo appeared prominently, and Rahman’s own words referred to the “owner/director/CEO of ARTA/Chef Online”—roles uniquely associated with Munim.
2. The allegations were obviously defamatory
Calling someone a thief, crook or cheat, especially in a business context, would self-evidently lower them in the eyes of right-thinking people.
3. The serious harm threshold was met
Under the Defamation Act 2013, a claimant must show actual or likely serious harm.
The court highlighted:
- Broad publication (Facebook friends, public access, community networks);
- Comments from readers indicating belief in the allegations; and
- Munim’s evidence that the posts endangered investment and business relationships,
as the basis upon which serious harm was clearly established.
4. The truth defence was hopeless
Given the findings in the copyright and company trials, the defendant could not reasonably claim that his allegations were true.
5. Honest opinion could not apply
None of the posts were recognisable as comments rather than statements of fact. They were blunt assertions that Munim stole, cheated, and defrauded the defendant. Even if they were opinions, no honest person could hold them based on the known facts.
6. Public interest defence had no chance
Rahman had taken no steps to verify his claims before posting them. Given the gravity of the accusations, this alone made a public-interest defence untenable.
The court’s orders
The judge granted the full range of available summary relief, including:
- Declaration of falsity
A formal statement that the allegations were false and defamatory.
- Order to publish a correction and apology
The parties must attempt to agree on wording. If they cannot, the court will order a summary of the judgment to be published instead.
- £10,000 in damages
This is the statutory cap for summary disposal cases, though the judge noted that on any view, general damages would have been far higher. The claimant however opted for the summary disposal procedure as he was already owed a substantial sum in costs in respect of the earlier trials that the defendant had not paid.
- Injunction
Rahman is now legally barred from repeating the allegations.
Final thoughts
After more than seven years of litigation, Munim v Rahman has finally reached its conclusion. The High Court’s firm approach sends a clear message: where unfounded, harmful accusations are made and then abandoned/proven false in collateral proceedings, the courts will not hesitate to grant robust remedies.
The case also stands as a stark reminder that social media disputes can rapidly escalate into serious legal battles with equally serious consequences.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you’re facing a defamation issue or need advice about protecting your reputation, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us