MAKERICKS3D LLP v Terence Lee Meng Kai

Facts

Makericks3D LLP designs and sells bicycle parts. In September 2022 one of its partners, Ms Tan Ying Hui (Alice), was introduced to Mr Terence Lee Meng Kai, a cycling influencer who posts as "Bikeguru.sg", and passed him two accessories, the M Snap and the M Spring, to review. After an argument in the comments on his Facebook post about the M Snap, he decided not to review them. On 23 January 2023 he told Alice the accessories were damaged, which he thought was caused by a difficult ride. Alice collected them at his condominium with two men and, on the claimant's account, told him the damage looked deliberately caused by tools. He walked away and made a police report.

The next day he published identical posts on Facebook and Instagram, without naming the claimant, describing how he had agreed to review a friend's products, decided not to after a heated argument, found them damaged possibly from impact on his overseas training camp, and felt intimidated by three visitors who questioned him. The posts ended with his terms for reviewing products and attached redacted photographs of the police report. In District Court Originating Claim No 374 of 2023, the claimant sued for defamation and malicious falsehood, seeking general, special and aggravated damages.

Issues

1. Whether the posts were defamatory of the claimant in their natural and ordinary meaning or by innuendo
2. Whether the posts referred to the claimant
3. Whether the defendant published a false statement maliciously that caused the claimant actual damage

Holding

The District Court dismissed the action, finding that neither the claim in defamation nor the claim in malicious falsehood was made out, and directed written submissions on costs limited to ten pages each within two weeks.

Reasoning

On meaning, the court held the claimant to its pleaded meanings and read the posts as a quick social media user would, following Stocker v Stocker [2020] AC 593. An ordinary reader would see only an account of events leading to an unpleasant confrontation and a statement of the defendant's review terms. The posts attributed the damage to his ride, not to poor quality; they made clear no review took place; and they did not tie the two men to the claimant, so any upset was Alice's, not the firm's. The innuendo case failed because the claimant led no evidence of who the readers with special knowledge were or what they knew.

On reference, the posts did not identify the claimant. The vague mention of a social media post could not be linked to the earlier Facebook post, which was nearly four months old and had been deleted on 24 December 2022, with several posts in between. One witness's personal understanding did not show how an ordinary reader would react, and another said he had no idea the posts concerned the claimant. Publication was made out but did not help.

On malicious falsehood, the claimant narrowed its case to whether the accessories were really damaged on the training camp. It bore the burden of proving they were not. The defendant's contemporaneous posts about punctures were consistent with his account, while Alice's theory that tools caused the damage needed expert evidence that was not called. No falsehood or malice was shown, and any fall in sales was not shown to be caused by the posts; correlation is not causation. The court observed that Alice's grievance was personal, yet she had sued in the firm's name.

From the judgment