Defamation in Renovation and Construction Disputes
Published on 11th July, 2025 by Wilbur Lim
**Defamation in Renovation and Construction Disputes **
As a lawyer handling a portfolio consisting of both defamation suits and construction arbitrations, our Mr. Wilbur Lim is uniquely positioned to address defamation claims arising from renovation and construction disputes. In this article, we would first set out the general legal principles involved for defamation claims, followed by the defence of justification which might entail the appointment of engineering or programming experts in the context of defamation claims arising from renovation and construction disagreements.
**General Legal Principles **
The Singapore High Court (“HC”) in Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and another [2015] 2 SLR 751 (“Golden Season”) aptly summarises the well-settled law on defamation. There are three key elements to establish the tort of defamation:
(a) a statement bearing a defamatory meaning; (b) publication to a third party; and (c) reference made to the plaintiff.
These elements would be addressed sequentially.
Firstly, the statement must bear a defamatory meaning.
As held in Golden Season, a statement is considered defamatory if it: (a) lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; (b) causes the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided; or (c) exposes the plaintiff to hatred, contempt or ridicule. At [37], the test to determine whether a statement is defamatory is “…generally determined based on the construction of the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used.”
Secondly, the plaintiff must establish that the defamatory statement has been communicated to at least one other person who has received it. The HC in Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co, Ltd and others v Goh Teck Beng and another [2016] 4 SLR 977 (“Qingdao”) is illustrative on this point. At [35], the court stated that publication has two components: (a) an act that makes the defamatory material available to a third party in a comprehensible form; and (b) the receipt of the information by a third party in such a way that it is understood.
Thirdly, the statement must refer to the claimant. The Singapore Court of Appeal (“CA”) in Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal [2010] 1 SLR 52 (“Review Publishing”) held at [49] that this test is an objective one, and concerns simply whether an ordinary reasonable person who “at the material time, was aware of the relevant circumstances or special facts (if any) would reasonably understand the plaintiff to be referred to by the offending words.” It is worth noting that the plaintiff need not be expressly referred to by name and it does not matter whether defendant intended to refer to the plaintiff.
The objective test is especially helpful in renovation disputes where customers might not have specifically referred to any ID companies in their review but had provided sufficient materials to lead readers to believe objectively that they are referring to a specific ID company.
**Defence of Justification **
The crux of justification rests in the truth of the defamatory statement, which needs to be proven by the defendant. At [134] of seminal case Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal [2010] 1 SLR 52 (“Review Publishing”), the CA held:
“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 same court, the CA held at [135] that the defendant must plead clearly which meaning he seeks to justify. In this case, the defence failed once the judge found that the meaning pleaded by the respondents were not the meaning the appellants sought to justify.
In the context of renovation and construction disputes, it is common for customers to allege that certain works were not done up to standards or whether the ID and/or construction company had breached their duties of care.
To rely on the defence of justification, the customer would therefore have to adduce sufficient evidence to support their position that the works were indeed not performed up to reasonable workmanship. It is therefore common for defamation suits arising from such renovation disputes to also involve the appointment of engineering experts to provide their views on the defects.
Should there be allegations of substantial delays in the project, a programming expert might also be necessary to determine the extent of delays based on established principles and to examine if the contractor or ID is responsible for the delays on the critical path.
The standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities. Justification is not established by showing “tenuous circumstantial evidence and interferences” as stated by the Singapore High Court (“HC”) in Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co, Ltd and others v Goh Teck Beng and another [2016] 4 SLR 977 (“Qingdao”) at [169]. Though an accusation of a serious matter will still require cogent evidence to establish as seen also in [169]:
“The more serious the allegation, the less likely it is that the event occurred. Consequently, the stronger the evidence must be before the event’s occurrence can be established on a balance of probabilities.”
A defendant in a defamation suit arising from renovation or construction disputes might therefore have to take into account the potential fees in the appointment of engineering and/or programming experts to discharge their burden of proof.
For queries on defamation in relation to renovation and construction disputes, you may contact our Head of the Defamation and Reputation Protection Practice, Mr. Wilbur Lim, at wilbur.lim@wmhlaw.com.sg or 6514 6351.
Disclaimer: The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
