Fineline Unique Pte Ltd and others v Koh Shou Wen and Erin Chua Qianyi

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lim Wee Ming
• Judgment Date: 11 September 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGDC 207
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 08 January 2020,27 March 2020,07 January 2020,15 June 2020,10 January 2020,09 January 2020,24 September 2019
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 2163 of 2018, District Court Appeal No 19 of 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Mark Lee (WMH Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Clarence Tan (UniLegal LLC)
• Subject Matter: Tort - Defamation,Defamatory statements,Justification
• Published date: 20 January 2021

District Judge Lim Wee Ming: Introduction

The plaintiffs’ claim is based on defamatory statements made by the defendants, arising from renovation works carried out by the plaintiffs, at the defendants’ home. The defendants also had a counterclaim arising from the plaintiffs’ renovation works.

I dismissed both the plaintiffs’ claim and the defendants’ counterclaim. The plaintiffs have appealed against my decision.

Facts

The defendants are husband and wife. The defendants had in August 2017, engaged the first plaintiff to carry out renovation works at their new condominium unit at Canberra Drive. The first plaintiff is part of the Fineline Group of Companies (“the Fineline Group”), which include the second to fifth plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs were recommended by Qanvast, an online home renovation platform connecting homeowners with interior designers. In June 2017, the defendants met the plaintiffs’ Aloysius Pek (“Aloysius”). The defendants dealt with Aloysius until February 2018, when they expressed their unhappiness with Aloysius to the plaintiffs. Samuel Chong (“Samuel”) then took over from Aloysius, who subsequently left the plaintiffs’ employment.

According to the plaintiffs’ senior project designer, Sim Hock Chong, otherwise known as “Roger”, the defendants wanted the following works to be done: Fabricate and install one toy display cabinet. Fabricate and install one television console and feature wall. Fabricate and install one half height shoe cabinet. Fabricate and install one L-shape wardrobe in the guest room. Installation of various electrical works throughout the unit.¹

Roger’s evidence was that the total eventual contract value was for the sum of $11,852.50.²

According to the defendants, there were delays and defects in the renovation works. They also complained about the plaintiffs’ unfulfilled promises and lack of oversight. The defendants repeatedly approached the plaintiffs to resolve their concerns, but little was done to address the defendants’ complaints.

In May 2018, the defendants published online articles on the plaintiffs, in Google Review and Hometrust.sg. The statements relied upon by the plaintiffs against the defendants are as follows: In Google Review, the following statements made by the first defendant: “1st impression when meeting the so-called self-proclaimed ID (more of a salesperson caliber)”, “Now, after almost 7 months of dealing with them, finally realised a lot of things they also cannot make it”, “Worst ID experience. Do not be fooled by their honeyed sweet worded sales tactics”, “…beware, u will need to do their job … while they continue to source for new customers.”³ In Google Review and Hometrust.sg, the following statements made by the second defendant: “It has been an amazing journey with Fineline”, “Where’s my overtime pay and where’s my keys? A whole new definition to “Handover Day” in the Interior Designing world dictionary”, “You get to also work closely with their Sub-cons because they themselves are always ‘in (other) appointments’!”, “My journey started since Jul 2017 and has just ended voyage few days ago!”, and “You must be wondering, why a 1 star rating for such an amazing journey… Coz this adventure is not meant for the faint hearted and please be prepared to have lotsa time off your work to enjoy the journey. Sadly, none applies to me. That said, my zen-ness level did level up – All the chasing and waiting for their calls (which may not even happen) this few months helps!”⁴

The parties’ positions

The plaintiffs’ case is that the statements made by the defendants as set out above are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, in that they meant that: The Fineline Group had misrepresented and/or defrauded the defendants into executing the Renovation Contract. The Fineline Group have been dishonest in their dealings with the defendants after the Renovation Contract had been executed. The Fineline Group are unreliable, negligent, unprofessional and wholly incompetent in the performance of their work, profession, business or trade. The Fineline Group have caused loss to the defendants and that the Fineline Group will further cause loss to future customers who engage the Fineline Group’s services.⁵

The defendants’ position is that the statements meant that: The first plaintiff did not carry out their works in a timely manner, caused the defendants lots of wasted time and their works were not of merchantable quality. The first plaintiff did not attend at the premises to supervise the subcontractors and left it to the defendants to do so. The defendants found their experience dealing with the first plaintiff to be their worst. The defendant had to take time off work and their weekends to supervise the first plaintiff’s subcontractor and workers.⁶

The defendants further rely on the defence of justification.

Issues

The key issues at the trial, were: the meaning of the statements made against the plaintiffs, and whether the defendants have established their defence of justification.

Meaning of the statements

In Chan Cheng Wah Bernard v Koh Sin Chong Freddie (“Chan Cheng Wah”) [2012] 1 SLR 506, the Court of Appeal held at [18]:

The general principles applicable to the construction of words based on their natural and ordinary meanings are as follows: (a) the natural and ordinary meaning of a word is that which is conveyed to an ordinary reasonable person; (b) as the test is objective, the meaning which the defendant intended to convey is irrelevant; (c) the ordinary reasonable reader is not avid for scandal but can read between the lines and draw inferences; (d) where there are a number of possible interpretations, some of which may be non-defamatory, such a reader will not seize on only the defamatory one; (e) the ordinary reasonable reader is treated as having read the publication as a whole in determining its meaning, thus “the bane and the antidote must be taken together”; and (f) the ordinary reasonable reader will take note of the circumstances and manner of the publication.

In relation to the plaintiffs’ case that the statements made by the defendants are defamatory in that they meant that the plaintiffs had misrepresented, defrauded or had been dishonest with the defendants, I find that the statements made by the defendant do not make out this meaning claimed by the plaintiffs.

In particular, the statements relied upon by the plaintiffs against the defendants, do not mean that the plaintiffs had misrepresented, defrauded or had been dishonest with the defendants. The statement “Now, after almost 7 months of dealing with them, finally realised a lot of things they also cannot make it” puts into context the subsequent statement “Worst ID experience. Do not be fooled by their honeyed sweet worded sales tactics”.⁷

Read together, the statements merely mean that the plaintiffs’ promises made in pitching for sales to their customers should not be trusted, as the work done and service provided fell short of what was promised. In essence, the defendants’ statements mean that the plaintiffs had over promised and under delivered. Although the defendants’ evidence was that they “felt cheated”⁸, it is the objective meaning of the words that were used by the defendants that is crucial, rather than how the defendants felt, in deciding the meaning of the defendants’ statements.

As for the plaintiffs’ case that the defendants’ statements mean that the Fineline Group are unreliable, negligent, unprofessional and wholly incompetent in the performance of their work, profession, business or trade and have caused loss to the defendants and will further cause loss to future customers, I find that the statements mean that the Fineline Group are unreliable, negligent, unprofessional and incompetent and have caused loss to the defendants and may cause loss to future customers, a slightly narrower meaning than that put forward by the plaintiffs.

Justification

The issue then is whether the defendants have established their defence of justification.

In Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country Club (“Kay Swee Pin”) [2010] 4 SLR 288, the High Court held at [55]:

To succeed in a plea of justification, the defendant need only prove that the substance or gist of the offending words (as opposed to those parts of the offending words which do not add to the sting of the alleged defamation) is true …

In the Court of Appeal decision of Chan Cheng Wah, which I have referred to earlier, it was held at [44]:

The defendant has only to prove the “sting” of the charge, and some leeway for exaggeration and error is given. As stated by Burrough J in Edwards v Bell (1824) 1 Bing 403 at 409: … it is sufficient if the substance of the libellous statement be justified; it is unnecessary to repeat every word which might have been the subject of the original comment. As much must be justified as meets the sting of the charge, and if anything be contained in a charge which does not add to the sting of it, that need not be justified.

In the present case, the sting of the libel was that the Fineline Group are unreliable, negligent, unprofessional and incompetent.

In Kay Swee Pin, the court further held at [57]:

When deciding the issue of justification, I have to decide whether a sufficient proportion of the allegations made … were factually correct. … So the question which I have to decide is whether the defendants made good on a balance of probabilities the sting of the libel is substantially true. The defendants do not need to prove each and every word is true.

In support of their defence of justification, the defendants raised the following key points: the plaintiffs’ failure to live up to their promises, the plaintiffs’ inconsistent documentation, the plaintiffs’ delays and defects in relation to the display cabinet, the defects...