Singapore court awards S$1 in defamation case over Facebook share with one reaction

Publication was minimal

The court found that the Facebook post attracted a total of one reaction and one share, and that the defendant had approximately 584 Facebook friends — described by the court as “by no means a large number.”

Deputy Registrar Anand found no direct evidence of widespread publication, and held that Ng’s claim that a part-time staff member had encountered the post online was inadmissible hearsay evidence.

The court noted that even if the post had once been publicly accessible, the fact that it garnered at most two responses over more than three years showed it had not gained any traction. The damage to Ng’s reputation from the post was found to be minimal, or de minimis, in legal terms.

The court drew on the English Court of Appeal decision in Jameel v Dow Jones, which found that where publication of defamatory material is exceedingly limited, only nominal damages are appropriate, as both the harm and any vindication would be minimal.

Reputation undeserving of protection

Beyond the limited publication finding, the court identified a second, independent basis for awarding only nominal damages: that Ng’s reputation was not deserving of legal protection.

Ng and his wife testified at length about the harm caused to his reputation and personal wellbeing. He claimed that after the article’s publication in March 2021, invitations to appear in press, television, and radio interviews ceased entirely, speaking engagements stopped, and family members on both sides began distancing themselves from him.

Deputy Registrar Anand found these claims implausible. The court said it “beggars belief” that a Facebook post with one reaction and one share could have caused the widespread reputational harm and severe distress alleged.

The court also drew parallels with the English Court of Appeal decision in Wright v McCormack, in which a claimant who falsely claimed to have been disinvited from conferences as a result of defamatory publications was awarded only nominal damages of one pound. In that case, the court found that where the sting of the libel was dishonesty, a claimant’s own dishonest conduct during proceedings was directly relevant to the damages assessment.

Deputy Registrar Anand applied the same reasoning, finding that Ng’s exaggeration of his losses was a disreputable fact relevant to the assessment, particularly because the relief he sought was to vindicate his reputation for “trust, integrity and public confidence.”

Earlier defamation action dismissed

The court also took note of an earlier defamation action, DC 1231/2021, in which Ng, together with Candle Consulting Pte Ltd and Vendshare Pte Ltd, had sued Rice Media, its director, and the article’s author over the same Online Article.

That action never substantively proceeded. The court ordered Ng to disclose six categories of documents, including correspondence with the Singapore Police Force regarding any investigations into the Vendshare scheme. When he failed to do so, an unless order was imposed. Ng again failed to comply, and the case was dismissed on 30 June 2022. A subsequent application to set aside the dismissal was itself dismissed in July 2023, and Ng did not appeal.

At the damages assessment hearing, Ng attempted to characterise the earlier dismissal as arising purely from procedural and evidential issues relating to corporate financial records. Deputy Registrar Anand rejected this account as incomplete, noting that the failure to disclose police correspondence was a material reason for the dismissal.

The court also noted, without elaboration, that Ng had disclosed the existence of other pending defamation actions regarding the same Online Article, and that he had commenced the present action without the two corporate entities to “avoid the issue of res judicata.” The court stated it was left with “many unanswered questions” about this approach.

Nominal damages and no order as to costs

The court awarded Ng S$1 in nominal damages and made no order as to costs, given that the defendant had not participated in the proceedings.

Deputy Registrar Anand cited the principle that a claimant who receives only nominal damages at an assessment hearing has effectively lost, and noted that given the minimal harm caused, “this action should never have been commenced.”