Introduction

In the recent case of D’Season Pte Ltd v Sophia Wu Chao Wen [2025] SGDC 234, the District Court of Singapore found the Defendant liable for defamation arising from a Facebook post alleging that the claimant company had sold “poisonous” and “toxic” vegetables, awarding the claimant $25,000 in damages. 

BR Law Corporation represented the successful claimant, D’Season Pte Ltd (“D’Season”). 

Brief Facts 

The claimant, D’Season, imports and sells goods and produce from Taiwan to Singapore. It brought a claim against the Defendant for defamation arising out of a post that the Defendant published on its private Facebook page. 

Holding of the Court 

The Court found that: 

• A prima facie case of defamation was established.  
  • The Court found that to a reasonable reader, the natural and ordinary meaning of the Defendant’s post was that the claimant sells poisonous and/or spoilt vegetables, cheats its customers and conducts its business in a dishonest and improper manner and without conscience.  
  • As the Defendant’s post was seen and had garnered “reactions” from the Defendant’s friends, the Defendant’s post on her private Facebook page was considered published (albeit limited). 
  • Even though the Defendant did not expressly state the claimant’s name in the post, there was evidence of readers who understood the post to refer to the claimant. 

• The Defendant could not rely on the defence of fair comment.  
  • While the court found food safety to be a matter of public interest, the court found that an ordinary reasonable reader would understand the Defendant’s post to be assertions of fact and not the Defendant’s own deductions or inferences.  
  • Even if the statements in the Defendant’s post were comments, the court did not find these comments to be based on facts.  
  • The court also found that while a fair-minded person would not have found the vegetables fit for consumption, a fair-minded person would not conclude that the vegetables were poisonous or spoilt and that the claimant was cheating it customers and conducting its business in a dishonest and improper manner and without conscience. 

D’Season was found to have a business reputation in Singapore and was presumed to have suffered damage to its reputation by reason of the post. D’Season was awarded $15,000 in general damages and $10,000 in special damages as its probable loss of profits. 

Concluding Thoughts 

This case illustrates the risks individuals face when making critical posts online about businesses. Negative online comments about businesses can constitute defamation, especially if the statements in the reviews are untrue and tarnishes the business’s reputation. Even though the post in this case was a private Facebook post and did not refer to the claimant expressly, defamation can still be established since the post can be accessed and can be reasonably understood to refer to the claimant. 

To rely on the defence of fair comment, it needs to be clear which statements are fact and comments, and any comments made must be based on facts. 

For any related enquiries, please feel free to contact us. 

This article is produced by BR Law Corporation. It does not constitute legal advice and is intended to provide general information only. 

Reference Materials: 
The judgement is available on the Singapore Courts website.