Key Points
- Former Coronation Street actor Qasim Akhtar is to receive “substantial” libel damages from News Group Newspapers, The Sun’s publisher, to settle a High Court claim.
- The claim concerned a Sun story published in November that made false allegations about Akhtar being linked to Islamic extremism, radicalisation and violence.
- The article also falsely alleged that Akhtar had “moved to Pakistan” and had “trained with guns”.
- The Sun previously apologised “unreservedly” and accepted the allegations were “entirely false”.
- Akhtar’s lawyer said the publication caused serious harm to his reputation and great distress, including harm to family life and business.
- News Group Newspapers said the article should never have been published and undertook not to repeat the allegations.
- Akhtar did not attend the court hearing, but an agreed statement was read on his behalf.
- The settlement also includes legal costs.
UK (Liverpool standard) July 23, 2026 – former Coronation Street actor Qasim Akhtar is to receive substantial libel damages after settling his High Court claim against News Group Newspapers, the publisher of The Sun.
As reported by the BBC, the case stems from an article that wrongly linked Akhtar to extremism and claimed he had moved to Pakistan and trained with guns. The Sun had already apologised and accepted the allegations were false before the settlement was confirmed in court.
As reported by Daniel Taylor, Akhtar’s lawyer, the newspaper’s publication caused “serious harm” to his reputation and “great distress” to his family life and business, which he said had been put on hold while the case was unresolved. News Group Newspapers’ lawyer, Andrew Wheelhouse, said the defendant acknowledged the article should never have been published and had promised not to repeat the allegations.
How was Akhtar affected?
Akhtar said in an Instagram post in June that the previous six months had been “very tough to say the least” and that the allegations had deeply affected him, his reputation, his family, his safety and his peace of mind. The settlement follows a period in which he publicly challenged the claims and pursued legal action through media law firm Taylor Hampton. The case was resolved after The Sun accepted that the allegations were entirely false.
Why was The Sun’s apology important?
The Sun’s apology matters because it directly acknowledged that the article did not meet the basic standard of accuracy required before publication. In its published statement, the newspaper said Akhtar had never endorsed or supported extremist views and had never been involved in radicalisation, moved to Pakistan or undertaken firearms training. That wording is central to the settlement because it confirms the specific allegations at the heart of the libel claim were withdrawn.
What did the lawyers say?
Daniel Taylor said the case involved “extremely serious and deeply damaging” allegations. He also said the article had unfairly targeted Akhtar because of his religion and identity. For its part, News Group Newspapers accepted the story should not have been published and agreed to pay damages and costs.
What happened to the original story?
The original Sun story appeared online and in print in November and alleged that Akhtar had backed and teamed up with an Islamic cleric. It then extended those claims by saying he was linked with extremism, radicalisation and violence, and that he had gone to Pakistan for firearms training. The newspaper later said those claims were “entirely false” and apologised for the “serious harm and distress” caused.
Background of the development
The case became public after Akhtar, best known for playing Zeedan Nazir in Coronation Street from 2014 to 2018 and again from 2021 to 2023, brought a libel claim earlier this year. Akhtar has also appeared in Shameless and Waterloo Road. The dispute is part of a wider pattern in which public figures challenge media reports that they say damage reputation, safety and livelihoods, especially when allegations involve extremism or violence.
What could this mean for public figures?
For public figures, this settlement underlines how quickly a false report can cause reputational damage and personal distress. It may also encourage faster legal challenges when serious claims are published without adequate checks or a request for response. For audiences, especially fans and employers, the case is a reminder to treat sensational allegations cautiously until they are verified by reliable reporting.
