Full Breakdown
Wellington Businessman Wins Six-Figure Defamation Award Over TikTok Video
8/22/2026, 11:43:12 AM
Background of the TikTok Video and Employment Dispute
(translated as “it won’t be forgiven”). Although the subject was not named, Justice Rachel Dunningham later concluded that the description was sufficient for members of the Indian community to identify Amandeep Bakshi, director and shareholder of Nirmal, which operates bottle stores and kebab shops throughout Wellington.
Former employee Paras Kamboj, whose employment with Nirmal ended on June 25 2025 after unexplained absences beginning June 17, reposted the TikTok video on his personal Instagram account. Neither Gill (the TikTok creator) nor Kamboj filed a defence or attended the hearing.
Court Findings and Damages Awarded
Justice Dunningham ruled that Gill’s video and Kamboj’s Instagram repost each constituted publication of defamatory statements. She described the allegations—forcing women to sleep with the employer, staff harassment, and threats of kidnapping or killing—as “extremely serious” and “seriously defamatory.”
The judgment awarded Bakshi $100,000 in damages from Gill, $50,000 from Kamboj, and $51,279 in costs, totalling $201,279. The court found insufficient evidence that the video had materially harmed Bakshi’s businesses, but accepted that it damaged his reputation within the Indian community and caused personal distress to him and his family.
Impact on Reputation and Community Relations
Bakshi testified that community members approached him after viewing the video, and that several individuals “reduced or ceased communication” with him. Affidavits from friends and former associates described Bakshi as a person of “vision and wisdom” who treats employees with “respect and love,” reinforcing the court’s view that the statements harmed his standing. While the judgment did not establish a direct loss to his commercial operations, the court acknowledged the “negative impression” created by the video and the resulting anxiety within his household.
Official Response from the Judiciary
The decision underscores New Zealand’s legal stance that online defamation can attract significant civil liability, regardless of the platform used.
Significance for Online Speech and Business Reputation
The case illustrates how social-media accusations, even when the target is not explicitly named, can lead to substantial financial penalties when courts determine that the audience can reasonably identify the subject. It also highlights the legal responsibility of individuals who share such content, reinforcing the principle that reposting defamatory material is not a safe harbour from liability.
