Singh Homes Pty Ltd & Ors v Singh [2025] VCC 1740

Digi-Tech (Australia) Pty Ltd v Brand [2004] NSWCA 58

Ductline Pty Ltd v Arcric Investments Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 1517; 32 IPR 419

Finishing Services Pty Ltd v Lactos Fresh Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 177

Flogineering Pty Ltd v Blue Logistics SA Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] FCA 1258

Flogineering Pty Ltd v Blue Logistics SA Pty Ltd (No 4) [2021] FCA 1219

Ford Motor Co of Australia Ltd v Arrowcrest Group Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 313; 134 FCR 522

Hockley v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 652; (2015) 237 FCR 33

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O'Shane (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 291

Keys Consulting Pty Ltd v CAT Enterprises Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 136

Madden v Seafolly Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 30

Mannoun v Ritevski [2024] NSWDC 564

March v Stramare E & MH Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; 171 CLR 506

Melinkov & Anor v Vainer & Anor [2019] VSCA 283

Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 3

Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] QSC 192

Rader v Haines [2022] NSWCA 198

Selkirk v Wyatt [2024] FCAFC 48; (2024) 302 FCR 541

Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL [1994] HCA 4

Typing Centre of NSW Pty Ltd v Northern Business College Ltd (1989) 13 IPR 627

Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] VSC 521

Judgment for the first, second and third plaintiffs. The defendant is to

pay the amount of $673,000 in damages to the first plaintiff, $5,000 in damages to the second plaintiff and $5,000 in damages to the third plaintiff.

1. In 2022, Gurvinderpal Singh engaged Singh Homes Pty Ltd to build a new home for him in Truganina. Parvinder Singh Sarwara and Daman Preet Singh Anand are the directors of Singh Homes.
2. Construction on the home started in late April 2023 but within a few months the parties were in dispute; Singh Homes said that Mr Singh was late making payments for staged invoices, was attending the building site unaccompanied and was giving directions to tradespeople on site. Mr Singh raised concerns about the quality of Singh Homes' work, particularly regarding the concrete slab, and says his concerns were not addressed.
3. Mr Singh raised his concerns by email on 5 and 6 July 2023, and on 11 August 2023 told Singh Homes that his next step would be to take the matter "towards all social media platforms".[1]
4. Mr Singh and Singh Homes had several meetings to try to resolve their disputes, including on 30 October 2023, 24 November 2023 and 5 December 2023.[2]
5. On 1 December 2023,[3] 9 December 2023,[4] and 9 January 2024,[5] Mr Singh told Singh Homes he intended to go public if his concerns were not addressed to his satisfaction.
6. The parties were unable to resolve their dispute. On 15 December 2023, Singh Homes issued a notice of intention to terminate, and on 12 February 2024 it formally terminated the contract with Mr Singh.[6]

1. On 14 February 2024 Mr Singh uploaded a post onto a Facebook page called "Dodgy Builders Melbourne". In that post Mr Singh wrote:

My life is ruined because of this Melbourne Worst custom builder. I am not sure why people are giving them a five star rating still. Worst ever experience and worst ever customer service and worst ever management and worst ever decision to select this unprofessional builder.

Current position: - They have ruined my and family life with their selfish and ego behaviour. When I gave them the deposit almost 2 year ago, my land was already titled and it was a single story house. It is s till on fixing stage. Permit received 22 march 2023 (last year).

I have put my hard earned money which i borrowed from my family and friends to build this dream house which seems to be shattered now.

The house is on Morris Road in Truganina. Shortly I will put everything on social media with full proof vedio (sic) and photos one by one.

Anybody who is building with Singh Homes can contact me via email. My email ID is _____

1. The Facebook post was accompanied by a number of hashtags including: #singhhomes #singhhomesaustralia #LuxuryBuilder #Homedesign #dreamhome #melbournehomes.[7]
2. The Facebook post attracted a number of comments.[8]

1. On 17 February 2024, Mr Singh uploaded a video to the social media platform TikTok. The TikTok video featured Mr Singh speaking to the camera in Punjabi. He said he had had a very bad experience with Singh Homes, that it had been almost two years and the house was not complete. He said from the slab stage to the time of recording the video, everything Singh Homes had finished was found to have major faults. He said he complained individually to the directors, "Goldie" and Daman, and to the supervisors, Anthony, Rhodes, Julian, and Akshar, but no one listened to him. He complained that no one addressed his issues but instead threatened to cancel his contract if payment was not made.
2. He said he was mentally harassed and that he made the video so that "my brothers and sisters who is going to sign contract with them should see this video and should know that it is very difficult for me to work with them after signing my contract and it will be difficult for them too and they should get knowledge from this".[9] He said that "a person thinks that he should commit suicide by throwing himself under the train, they put you into such a situation. They will send you variation after variation and what about them".[10] He said he had trade experience so could identify the problems but that many laypersons would not appreciate or understand such issues, stating "they will build rubbish house for them because their supervisor does not focus properly on the work. Daman, Goldie can only give orders from the office, but neither the supervisor nor anyone else is checking the site".[11]
3. The TikTok video also attracted numerous comments.[12]
4. The plaintiffs subsequently issued proceedings against Mr Singh, alleging false and misleading representation, injurious falsehood, and defamation. The trial was heard by a jury between 28 May 2025 and 18 June 2025.

Claim pursuant to section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law and injurious falsehood

1. The jury found that the Facebook post was made in trade or commerce, was made by Mr Singh with malice and contained the following representations which were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive:

(a) Singh Homes ruined Gurvinder's life;

(b) Singh Homes is the worst builder in Melbourne in all respects;

(c) Singh Homes dawdled in its building contract with Gurvinder, because two years after Gurvinder had paid his deposit, construction had only gotten (sic) to the fixing stage;

(d) Singh Homes did such an appalling job that they shattered Gurvinder's dream of building his dream house; and

(e) Gurvinder borrowed money from his family and friends so that he could get his dream house built, and Singh Homes shattered that dream.

1. The jury found the TikTok video was made in trade or commerce, was made with malice and conveyed the following representations, which were misleading and deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive:

(a) While operating their building business known as Singh Homes, the plaintiffs refuse to listen to or respond to any complaints made by their clients;

(b) The plaintiffs make ruthless demands for payment from their clients on that same day and make callous threats that if those demands are not met, the building contract will be terminated;

(c) The plaintiffs harassed Gurvinder;

(d) The plaintiffs caused Gurvinder to suffer from depression;

(e) The plaintiffs caused Gurvinder to want to kill himself;

(f) The plaintiffs are dodgy builders;

(g) Singh Homes is a dodgy builder; and

(h) While operating their business known as Singh Homes, the plaintiffs had neglected Gurvinder for two years and had been unable to complete construction of his house when they ought to have done.

1. The jury found that Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand were not identified in the Facebook post and therefore their claims in defamation fail in relation to that publication.
2. The jury found the TikTok video was of and concerning each of Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand and that it conveyed the following imputations:

(a) While operating their building business known as Singh Homes, Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand refuse to listen or respond to any complaints made by their clients;

(b) Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand make ruthless demands for immediate payment from their clients and make callous threats that if payment is not made that day, the building contract will be terminated;

(c) While operating their business known as Singh Homes, Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand caused Gurvinder to suffer from depression and made him want to kill himself;

(d) Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand are dodgy builders; and

(e) While operating their business known as Singh Homes, Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand neglected Gurvinder for two years and have been unable to complete construction of his house when they ought to have done.

1. The jury rejected defences of truth and honest opinion.
2. The jury found that comments on the TikTok video were of and concerning Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand and conveyed the following imputations:

(a) Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand are responsible for their building business, Singh Homes, going into liquidation;

(b) Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand are dodgy builders;

(c) Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand, through Singh Homes, operate a dodgy building business;

(d) Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand are unqualified and greedy builders;

(e) Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand, through Singh Homes, are unqualified and greedy builders;

(f) Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand rip off their customers; and

(g) Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand, through Singh Homes, rip off their customers.

1. The jury rejected defences of truth or honest opinion in relation to the TikTok comments.

1. Given the jury verdict, the issues that remain to be determined are:
2. ACL Claim:

(a) What loss or losses have the plaintiffs established they suffered as a result of the misleading and deceptive representations contained in the Facebook post and the TikTok video?

(a) Have the second and third plaintiffs established that the imputations conveyed by the TikTok video caused serious harm to their reputations; and if so, in what sum should damages be assessed?

(a) a person (the claimant) suffers loss or damage because of the conduct of another person; and

(b) the conduct contravened a provision of Chapter 2 or 3;

the claimant may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against that other person, or against any person involved in the contravention.

1. The plaintiffs sued only Mr Singh, and therefore cannot rely, for the purposes of the ACL claim, on the third-party comments his Facebook post and TikTok video attracted.

1. In assessing damages for misleading and deceptive conduct pursuant to statute, the following principles apply:

(a) Principles of common law relevant to assessing damages in contract or tort do not constrain or limit the section;[13]

(b) The applicant must prove that loss or damage was 'because of' conduct in breach of the ACL. There is no reason to believe that the principles applicable to the earlier test of section 82 do not also apply to section 236 of the ACL, notwithstanding that section 236 uses the phrase 'because of' rather than 'by conduct of';[14]

(c) The applicant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it has suffered a loss or damage of some value (not being negligible value);[15]

(d) The contravention need not be the sole cause of the loss. It must merely be a sufficient cause;[16]

(e) As long as the breach materially contributed to the damage, a causal connection will ordinarily exist, even if the breach, on its own, would not have caused the damage. Whether such a connection exists is a question of fact, to be determined by reference to common-sense experience and one into which policy considers and value judgements naturally enter;[17]

(f) Where an applicant establishes that misleading or deceptive conduct has caused the loss of a commercial opportunity of some non-negligible value, the value of the lost opportunity is to be ascertained by reference to hypotheses and possibilities, which, though they may not be capable of proof on the balance of probabilities, are to be evaluated as a matter of informed estimation;[18]

(g) An entitlement to damages is not defeated merely because the loss is difficult to quantify. In appropriate circumstances, where some sort of actual loss has been established, the Court must estimate the damages as best it can;[19]

(h) There is no requirement that damages can only be recovered where the applicant relies on the respondent's conduct. All that is required is a chain of causation, which may be established by misleading conduct, an innocent party being induced by that conduct to act in some way and the innocent party's act, by its very nature, to cause the applicant loss.[20] This may include that a third party relied on the misrepresentation and that party's reliance caused loss to the applicant;[21]

(i) Compensation for damage to commercial reputation is available under section 236 of the ACL, and the Court will have regard to the nature of the statements made by the respondents and to the manner and extent of their publication;[22] and

(j) A party may be entitled to damages for loss of profits, plus damages for a separate head for damage to commercial reputation.[23]

Loss of business profits claimed by Singh Homes as a result of the misleading and deceptive representations

1. Singh Homes says it lost business profits from twelve clients who did not pursue contracts with Singh Homes as a result of representations. The representations materially contributed to those losses and it is not necessary for Singh Homes to prove that the representations were the sole cause.
2. The estimated loss is based on the following evidence:

1. Singh Homes lost a commercial opportunity to enter into a contract with Client 1 relating to 2 Winjeel Avenue, Point Cook. Singh Homes says Mr Singh's representations were a material cause of that loss of opportunity because the recording system its sales representatives used at that time, InSimplify, recorded the following:

"Client went to Panache Homes and the client has trust issues coz of social media reviews and videos";

"Client decided not to go with Singh Homes coz of that video in social media".

1. Singh Homes says the proposed contract had a value of $1,175,327.64 and a lost profit of $272,088.35.[24]

1. Singh Homes sales representative Mandeep Pal gave evidence that:

(a) He first met Client 2, a couple, at a display home in around September 2023. They were interested in building a house at Lot 158, Woolman Street, Lara;

(b) Client 2 signed a concept plan on 16 November 2023;[25]

(c) A draft contract was prepared for Client 2;

(d) Mandeep first found out about the TikTok video when Client 2 sent him the TikTok video and asked him if he knew what it was about;[26]

(e) On or around 21 February 2024, Client 2 told Mandeep that he did not want to go any further with Singh Homes, and later sent an email which stated:

Although we have decided not to proceed with Singh Homes after watching multiple videos and reviews online, which were quite disturbing for us....

1. The lost contract value was $558,893.58 and would have yielded Singh Homes a profit of $129,383.86.

1. Pooja Rani, a sales representative of Singh Homes, gave evidence that:

(a) She spoke to Client 3 in around September 2023. Client 3 said she and her husband were looking for land to build on and that she was a big fan of Singh Homes because she liked classical house designs;[27]

(b) Client 3 asked Pooja to help her find a block of land that was suitable. She showed Pooja around 6-7 potential properties and bought a block of land in Huey Circuit Cranbourne;

(c) Singh Homes prepared two options for a site plan on this site;[28]

(d) Pooja spent a lot of time working with Client 3 and spoke to Client 3 about twice a month from September 2023 until February 2024;[29]

(e) In early 2024, Client 3 sent Pooja images of facades and sketches that she wanted for her new home;

(f) Singh Homes provided Client 3 with a quote of $1,596,857.27;[30]

(g) After the TikTok video, Client 3 stopped picking up her calls from Pooja. Eventually she said that she had heard that every building company was going into liquidation and that she was pausing her construction because builders were getting bad reviews;[31]

(h) Client 3 did not proceed with Singh Homes but it appears that construction commenced on the property, with a different company; and

(i) The lost contract value was $1,596,857.27 and would have yielded Singh Homes a profit of $369,672.46.

(a) On or around 1 July 2023, she spoke to Client 4. Between July and November, she met him at two or three Singh Homes properties, as well as the house of a former client;[32]

(b) They had detailed discussions about the design and location of particular walls;

(c) In November 2023, Client 4 told Pooja that he was waiting to get a construction loan so he could build his property;

(d) An undated quote was prepared for Client 4;

(e) Pooja called Client 4 on 26 February 2024. He said that he didn't want to sign up with Singh Homes because of the negative reviews; and

(f) A few months later, Pooja spoke to Client 4, who said he should have signed with Singh Homes. He said one of his friends had shown him the TikTok video and he "got scared".[33]

1. The lost contract value was $387,402.85 and would have yielded Singh Homes a profit of $89,683.76.

Clients 5 and 6 - Lot 4106 Falconer Drive, Mickleham and Lot 3034 Denmead Drive, Donnybrook

(a) Clients 5 and 6 were a couple who were considering two building projects;[34]

(b) They paid for concept plans for both of the properties;[35]

(c) They signed quotations for both properties;[36]

(d) In her experience, once a client has signed a quotation, they almost always go ahead with Singh Homes;[37]

(e) They did not attend their colour selection appointments on 27 February 2024; and

(f) They did not pick up phone calls from Singh Homes on 27 February 2024 and 7 March 2024.

(a) $592,406.75 and would have yielded Singh Homes a profit of $137,142.16;

(b) $367,849.72 and would have yielded Singh Homes a profit of $85,157.21.

Client 7 - Lot 1543 (12) Fenwick Street, Tarneit

(a) Client 7 was a client of her associate, Neha;[38]

(b) An estimate and concept plan were being prepared for the property;[39]

(c) In February 2024, after the TikTok video, Pooja called Client 7, who said to her: I have seen what is going on with you guys in the market; You are not doing the right things by your client.

(d) The lost contract value was $322,740 and would have yielded Singh Homes a profit of $74,714.31.

(a) Client 8, a couple, were looking to build a home in the Alamora Estate in Tarneit;[40]

(b) They told Bhatia that they were comparing Singh Homes' quote with that of another builder;[41]

(c) They stopped responding to Bhatia's calls after the TikTok video;[42] and7

(d) Eventually they told Bhatia that they had signed with another builder, that he had seen the TikTok video and it had scared him and he couldn't take the stress of building with Singh Homes.[43]

(a) He first met Client 9 at a display home in early February 2024, and sent him a quote for a new home;[44]

(b) On around 21 February 2024 Bhatia had a phone conversation with Client 9 who said that he had seen the TikTok video and signed with another builder. He said that he didn't want to build stress, so he did not pick Singh Homes;[45] and

(c) On or around 25 February 2024, an InSimplify note states:

Saw the TikTok video and is now not willing to proceed with us, tried convincing him.[46]

1. The lost contract value was $625,888.50 and would have yielded Singh Homes a profit of $144,893.19.

(a) Client 10 signed a concept plan on 19 November 2023;

(b) He sent the signed quote and concept plan to the front office, where Vicki Tsoutsoulis started working with them;[47]

(c) Client 10 made colour selections on 9 December 2023;

(d) A draft contract was sent to Client 10 with a total price of $844,382.01;

(e) On 10 January 2024, InSimplify records stated:

Customer requested to sign contracts after all costs are calculated and requested to make minor colour changes;[48] and

called customer to follow up on 5% and contract. Customer has been a little hesitant as they have been reading horrible reviews on social media of late and viewing videos.

1. The client ultimately did not go ahead with the contract.
2. The lost contract value was $844,382.01 and would have yielded Singh Homes a profit of $195,474.44.

(a) In early February 2024, he met Client 11 at a Singh Homes display home in Donnybrook;

(b) Client 11 told Narinder that he had land in Donnybrook and would like to build a double-story house, with a budget of approximately $700,000;[49]

(c) He said he was interested in getting Singh Homes to build his home;

(d) On 17 February 2024, Client 11 sent Narinder a link to the TikTok video with a message:

Sorry bro changed our mind after watching this.[50]

1. The lost contract value was $700,000 and would have yielded Singh Homes a profit of $162,050.00.

(a) He met Client 12 in late 2023 or early 2024;[51]

(b) On 21 January 2024, he prepared a quote;

(c) Client 12 told Narinder that he had been to a number of builders, but that he liked Singh Homes because it was able to give him a customized plan;[52]

(d) Client 12 called Narinder after the TikTok video was released. He stated that he had seen the TikTok video and that it had made him upset. He said that before the TikTok video he was happy going with Singh Homes, but asked what was he supposed to do now;[53] and

(e) After that, Client 12 did not call Narinder's calls. Eventually, late one night, he rang Narinder and said he could not proceed with Singh Homes. He questioned what had happened to the defendant such that he felt the need to put the TikTok video on social media. He said he had also seen a post on social media about Singh Homes going into liquidation.[54]

1. The lost contract value was $440,878.78 and would have yielded Singh Homes a profit of $102,063.44.

Quantum of loss of profits claimed by Singh Homes

1. Singh Homes says it lost the following profits:

(a) Client 1: The plaintiffs submit that in all of the circumstances, there was a 25% chance that this contract would have eventuated and accordingly, claim $68,022.09.

(b) Client 2: The plaintiffs submit that in all of the circumstances, especially given that a draft contract was prepared and ready to be signed, there was a 95% chance that Singh Homes would have secured this customer, equating to a loss of $122,914.66. It ought to be inferred from this evidence that a material cause of this loss of contract to Singh Homes was the representations by the defendant.

(c) Client 3: The plaintiffs submit that in all of the circumstances, there was a 70% chance that Singh Homes would have entered into the contract with this customer, equating to a loss of $258,770.72.

(d) Client 4: Given the statements of Client 4, it ought to be inferred that the representations were a material cause of this loss of customer to Singh Homes. The plaintiffs submit that in all of the circumstances, there was a 60% chance that Singh Homes would have entered into the contract with this customer, equating to a loss of $82,285.29.

(e) Clients 5 and 6: Given that this client abruptly ceased communicating shortly after signing quotations for two properties, and that this occurred within weeks of the TikTok video and the Facebook post, it is reasonable to infer that the defendant's representations were a material cause of the loss. The plaintiffs submit that in all of the circumstances, there was a 60% chance that Singh Homes would have entered into these contracts with this customer, equating to losses of $82,285.29 and $51,094.32, respectively.

(f) Client 7: Given the timing of the conversation shortly after the TikTok video was published, and the content of that conversation where Client 7 said Singh Homes did not do the right thing by its customers, it ought to be inferred that the defendant's representations were a material cause of the loss of this customer. The plaintiffs submit there was a 60% chance that Singh Homes would have entered into the contract with this customer, equating to a loss of $44,828.58.

(g) Client 8: The lost contract value was $300,000 and would have yielded Singh Homes a profit of $69,450.00. The plaintiffs submit there was a 60% chance that Singh Homes would have entered into the contract with this customer, equating to a loss of $41,670.

(h) Client 9: The plaintiffs submit there was a 60% chance that Singh Homes would have entered into the contract with this customer, equating to a loss of $86,935.91.

(i) Client 10: The plaintiffs say the timing of the refusal by Client 10 to enter into a contract with Singh Homes is compelling. This client was prepared to proceed on 10 January 2024 but had changed her mind by 21 February 2024, four days after the TikTok video was posted. She referred to viewing videos and "horrible reviews" on social media. It ought to be inferred that a material cause of this loss of contract was the representations by the defendant. The plaintiffs submit that, in all of the circumstances, there was a 95% chance that Singh Homes would have entered into the contract with this customer, equating to a loss of $185,700.71.

(j) Client 11: The plaintiffs submit it ought to be inferred that a material cause of this loss of contract was the representations by the defendant. Client 11 specifically referred to the TikTok video in his text and stated that, as a result of watching it, he changed his mind. The plaintiffs say it is difficult to conceive of better evidence that the representations caused a loss of a customer. The lost contract value was $700,000 and would have yielded Singh Homes a profit of $162,050.00. The plaintiffs submit there was a 20% chance that Singh Homes would have entered into the contract with this customer, equating to a loss of $32,410.

(k) Client 12: The plaintiffs submit it ought to be inferred that the representations were a material cause of the loss of this contract. The fact that Client 12 rang Narinder late one night in order to mention the TikTok video shows that he was likely to have chosen Singh Homes. The plaintiffs submit there was a 60% chance that Singh Homes would have entered into the contract with this customer, equating to a loss of $61,238.06.

1. The plaintiffs submit the total loss of profits from the twelve lost clients should be assessed at $1,089,608.59.

Loss of commercial reputation claimed by Singh Homes as a result of the representations

1. Further, the plaintiffs say that Singh Homes and each of its directors suffered a loss of business reputation for which they are entitled to be compensated.
2. The plaintiffs rely on evidence that a client who signs a concept plan is highly likely to sign a building contract with Singh Homes.
3. Akshal Kumar said about 90% of people who sign concept plans go on to build with Singh Homes.[55] Pooja Rana said there is a very high chance that a client will engage Singh Homes to build once a concept plan is signed.[56] Mandeep Pal said, in his experience, every person who paid for concept plans engaged Singh Homes to build their home.[57]
4. In the three-month period following the representations, from February 2024 to April 2024, there was an average of only 1.66 concept plans signed per month. In the eleven months prior to February 2024, there was an average of 5 concept plans signed per month. In the 15 months after April 2024, there was an average of 9 concept plans signed per month. This demonstrates that there was a loss of about 6 concept plans per month during the three months after the representations.
5. The average profit margin for Singh Homes on a contract is about 23% and the average contract price is about $600,000.
6. Singh Homes says, given a 90% chance that those clients who signed a concept plan contract would have gone on to sign a building contract, it has lost an estimated $125,000 per lost job.
7. It does not and cannot know the identity of people who did not sign concept plans, and who were turned off from even contacting Singh Homes because of the representations. It can only point to the significant downturn in the number of signed concept plans in the aftermath of the representations. It says the loss attributable to those customers who would otherwise have engaged Singh Homes is $2,186,424.90.
8. The plaintiffs say Mr Singh was also involved in a concerted effort to upload eleven one-star Google reviews of Singh Homes around the time of the Facebook post and the TikTok video. One of those reviews was posted by his sister-in-law who was not a client of Singh Homes. One of those reviews was from a friend of Mr Singh's, Siddhartha Mane, who was not a client of Singh Homes. One purported to be from "Ravi Sharma", who referred to himself, in the review, as a friend of the person who was building at Mr Singh's address.
9. The plaintiffs say the unavoidable inference is that these reviews were published at Mr Singh's request, particularly having regard to his repeated threats to Singh Homes to go to social media.
10. The plaintiffs rely on other evidence to show the damage done to Singh Homes' commercial reputation by the representations:

(a) Narinder Choudhary gave evidence that normally he would receive 2-3 leads from front office per week, but after the TikTok video, he received none for at least 2-3 months.[58]

(b) Pooja Rani gave evidence that after the TikTok video, clients started ghosting her. They would not pick up her calls or respond quickly to messages. When they did speak to her, they said they were hearing bad reviews and that soon Singh Homes will go into liquidation.[59]

(c) In February and March 2024, Akshal Kumar had to help Singh Homes get clients to sign their building contracts around 10 times or 2-3 times per week. Ordinarily, before the representations, he would have only been asked to become involved once a month, at most.[60] While doing this, Akshal Kumar spoke to clients who would say various things that led him to believe that they had apprehension about going forwards with Singh Homes. They said things like: Are you guys going down? Will you be around to complete my project? There are lots of negative things online about you.[61]

(d) Rhodes Mackenzie gave evidence that:

(i) In June 2023, Singh Homes had developed a name and reputation at the higher end for prestigious building.[62] It had won numerous awards from the Master Builders Association of Victoria. These awards are only given to builders that are at the top of the tree. Singh Homes had a strong reputation as a result and was known as a go-to builder for higher-end, traditional-style grand homes in Melbourne. It last won an award in November 2023;[63]

(ii) The impact on Singh Homes after the TikTok video really "kicked off badly". The business received so many phone calls that he had to arrange for two Singh Homes employees to be redeployed to answering telephone calls for 1-2 weeks;[64]

(iii) One of the major suppliers, Bunnings, pre-emptively placed Singh Homes' account on hold, despite Singh Homes having no commercial matters in dispute with Bunnings at the time. He spoke to a Bunnings representative who stated that the account was on hold because of the posts on social media. The issue was resolved within 24-48 hours, but the ripple effect caused a several-week delay on many projects, and caused additional stress and delays for staff who had to reschedule the work. The flow on was lost goodwill with existing clients whose build programs were delayed;[65]

(iv) Mr Mackenzie had to reassure staff at company meetings that the Singh Homes business was liquid, viable and if anything changed, they would be kept informed;[66]

(v) Staff were stressed by the negative commentary online and this made it difficult for them to perform their roles without stress during business hours;[67] and

(vi) He had daily conversations with staff and could see that the TikTok video had had a big impact on the Singh Homes' brand, the business and the staff's wellbeing.[68]

(e) Akshal Kumar gave evidence that:

(i) After the representations, people were suddenly asking Akshal if Singh Homes was going to be around or whether it was going down;[69] and

(ii) He observed that suppliers were suddenly asking if Singh Homes would be around and it appeared to him that people had lost confidence in the company.[70]

(f) Inderjeet Rakkar gave evidence that:

(i) Before 2024, Singh Homes was generally regarded as one of the best custom builders, especially in the Indian community. It won awards and had developed great credentials because of the quality of its work;[71]

(ii) The Facebook post had a big negative impact on Singh Homes;[72]

(iii) People said to him that they were concerned that Singh Homes was going bankrupt, that it had issues with clients that were not settled and that customer confidence was at an all-time low;[73]

(iv) 8-10 people talked to him about the TikTok video and were concerned about what was happening and why it was happening;[74]

(v) The general reputation of Singh Homes was damaged severely because of the bad word that had been put into the market; and[75]

(vi) The content of the TikTok video made Singh Homes, Parvinder and Daman look like they could not be trusted and that they were dodgy builders. This was a "shocker" and Singh Homes "lost its identity" to some extent.[76]

(g) Gurcharan Singh, a builder, gave evidence that the TikTok video became very famous in the Indian community and could have had a negative impact on Singh Homes; multiple people were talking about the TikTok video in the Indian community.[77]

(h) Ravinder Kapoor, a real estate agent, gave evidence that the TikTok video had an immediate negative impact on the reputation of Singh Homes and the directors. He always considered that Singh Homes had a good reputation before viewing the TikTok video.[78]

(i) Sudhir Bansal, another builder, gave evidence that:

(i) His son showed him the TikTok video and at least 20-30 different people spoke to him about the TikTok video and Singh Homes;[79]

(ii) Before the TikTok video, Singh Homes had a very good reputation and after the TikTok video, he received comments from his own customers and people were saying that Singh Homes was doing the wrong thing and running its business the wrong way. People were speaking negatively about Singh Homes. He was sure it had an impact on the reputation of Singh Homes and the directors;[80] and

(iii) His customers were asking him if his company was the same as Singh Homes and saying that they were concerned if that were the case. The TikTok video and the social media on Singh Homes was very damaging to it.[81]

(j) Vikkas Dhingra, a real estate agent, gave evidence that:

(i) A lot of people were talking about the TikTok video at the time;[82]

(ii) Singh Homes and its directors had a very good reputation before the TikTok video was posted and it was a matter of discussion in the community. He heard people saying things like: there goes another builder. They must have stuffed up. It caused a lot of gossip in the community.[83]

(k) Mr Anand gave evidence that:

(i) Singh Homes sponsors cricket clubs, soccer clubs and many social events. It is very well-known in the Indian community.[84] It has built more than 1,500 homes;[85]

(ii) He received around 40-45 calls about the TikTok video; and[86]

(iii) The TikTok video caused a big loss to the business and reputation. Its existing clients were doubting it, how it was working, whether it was going bankrupt and whether it would be ready to deliver what it promised.[87]

(l) Mr Sarwara gave evidence that:

(i) Singh Homes was one of the first few Indian builders who started building houses for customers in 2010;[88]

(ii) Singh Homes has won many awards from the Master Builders Association of Victoria. It has taken part in the Master Builders Association of Victoria's annual competitions over the last four or five years and has won a few awards each year. In 2023, Singh Homes won the best display home in the "more than $2.2 million" bracket;[89]

(iii) Everybody in the Indian community knows Singh Homes and the public faces of the company are himself and Mr Anand;[90] and

(iv) The TikTok video was not just circulated on TikTok, it was also shared on WhatsApp. A lot of people called him about the video, including from overseas. Everybody in the Indian community knew about the TikTok video.[91]

(m) Shane Carroll gave evidence that Singh Homes was well known in the building industry.[92]

(n) Matthew Stavrous also gave evidence that Singh Homes is reasonably well known in the building industry,[93] and there was a lot of negative chit-chat about Singh Homes at the time of the representations.[94]

(o) Chetan Bhandari gave evidence that Singh Homes is 100% well-known in the Indian community and in the broader construction community.[95]

1. The plaintiffs submit that a fair assessment of the damages to Singh Homes' commercial reputation is $1,000,000. This is based on the loss of the concept plans it likely would have signed, but for the representations, and the general loss of reputation and goodwill it has suffered within the building and Indian community, as demonstrated by the evidence.
2. Further, the plaintiffs say that as the public face of Singh Homes, both Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara have suffered a loss of commercial reputation for which they are each entitled to compensation. They say damage to their commercial reputation can be inferred from the lost clients and downturn in business after the representations.

Mr Singh's submissions about losses claimed by Singh Homes

1. Mr Singh submits that I could not be satisfied that the loss Singh Homes claims resulted from the representations. Mr Singh says there were other comments and posts online, pre-dating the representations that could have been a "trigger" for a customer walking away from Singh Homes. No evidence was provided of how widely these other online comments and posts were viewed.[96]
2. Mr Singh submits that it is inherently unlikely a customer would walk away from a building contract on the basis of a single video or Facebook post from an individual disgruntled client. A customer who was serious about Singh Homes was more likely to thoroughly investigate the company and, in doing so, was likely to have come across other negative content about Singh Homes online.
3. In particular, Mr Singh says there were negative reviews about Singh Homes on a website called "Product Review" on 16 July 2018, 28 February 2019, 19 July 2021, 18 July 2022, 9 November 2022, 17 November 2022, 22 January 2023, 15 June 2023, 4 July 2023, 30 August 2023, 24 September 2023, and 6 October 2023.[97] These reviews contained comments such as "really bad experience"[98], "no way will you get your home built within the timeframe"[99], "terrible customer service"[100], "hopeless and disappointing experience"[101], "worst builder - unprofessional team"[102], "worst builder with even worse workmanship"[103], "worst builder...stay away from this builder"[104], "try avoiding such a fraudulent builder"[105], "untrustworthy, poor workmanship, no work ethics"[106], "terrible experience"[107], "poor workmanship"[108], and "don't build your home with Singh Homes".[109]In addition, Mr Singh says there were negative reviews uploaded to Google Reviews on 6 July 2022, 17 December 2022, 15 June 2023, 3 July 2023, 29 August 2023, August/September 2023, September 2023, in 2023/2024, , and March 2024.[110] These reviews contained comments such as "worst experience"[111], "worst builder in Melbourne"[112], "worst experience with this builder...they will make your life living hell"[113], "I reached out to director Daman but his behaviour was even worse...stands out as the most arrogant person I have ever encountered"[114], "untrustworthy, poor workmanship, no work ethics"[115], "rude, arrogant and unprofessional"[116], "try avoiding such a fraudulent builder"[117], "they shouldn't be in the building industry"[118], "please do not go with Singh Homes"[119], "these people don't care about your dream home"[120], and "avoid Singh Homes at all costs".[121]
4. Mr Singh says there was a separate TikTok video posted on 20 October 2023. The poster of this video said "If anyone, my brother or my sister, has to throw their wishes, their hopes, their dreams into the gutter, who has extra time, who has extra money, who is fed up with happiness, who wants to create a tense atmosphere in their home", are "making a mistake" if they have signed with Singh Homes because "to get all the above things, you have to go to Singh Homes[122] The poster also said that "Daman and Goldie" were the directors, and that Mr Anand had told him "you can't make a video and post, we can take legal action against you".[123]

Did Singh Homes suffer a loss of business profits as a result of the representations?

1. Mr Singh relies on 24 negative reviews posted about Singh Homes over a 6-year period. Mr Singh also relies on a TikTok video posted four months before his video.
2. A screenshot of Singh Homes' Product Review profile = shows that Singh Homes had, at the time the screenshot was taken, 146 reviews on that site of which 129 or 88% were positive and 12% were negative.[124] No information was put before the Court as to when that screenshot was taken. There was no information as to the extent of publication of the reviews on the Product Review website, for example the number of members of the website, the number of views of each post, or the extent of readership. Many of the posts have no evidence, on the face of the screenshot provided, that there was any engagement by readers. Some posts on the website have a number of "votes". On most websites of this kind, a "vote" indicates that a reader has found the review useful. The most votes any of the negative Singh Homes reviews has is 9 votes.[125] Additional screenshots of the Product Review website showed that Singh Homes had 169 reviews at the time these screenshots were taken.[126] Again, there was no information about when these screenshots had been taken. An undated screenshot of an undated negative post by "Rohit" shows that, at that time, Singh Homes had 170 reviews on Product Review.[127]
3. In the absence of any information about the readership of Product Review, the number of subscribers, or its place within the market, it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the likelihood that the negative reviews about Singh Homes were a factor in the losses claimed by Singh Homes.
4. There was no evidence about the extent of publication of the Google reviews. I can infer something about the readership by the number of "likes" each review received, which ranged from zero to 26. Not in evidence was the number of overall reviews, the overall star rating on Google reviews, and the timing of the Google reviews. I can infer very little about the likely impact of these reviews.
5. I accept as a matter of common sense that a motivated consumer might look at multiple review sites before committing to a significant step such as signing a building contract. There is a possibility that such a consumer may have seen other online reviews and the other TikTok video.
6. However, the evidence suggests that if these other negative reviews were causing a loss of customers prior to the representations, that loss was already "baked in" to the numbers of concept plans and contracts Singh Homes was signing. The sudden and dramatic drop in numbers does not appear to be related to those pre-existing reviews, particularly given that some of them were very old.
7. To the extent that potential customers referenced the "video" in their conversations with Singh Homes staff, I infer that the most likely video was the TikTok video, given the evidence of its extensive publication and the evidence that it was widely viewed and known within the Indian community.
8. To the extent that Mr Singh submits that his representations may have prompted a potential consumer to investigate Singh Homes more deeply, and thus caused such a consumer to come across the other negative views, I am satisfied that it is his representations that have materially caused Singh Homes to lose those consumers. This was, I note, merely a submission and not based on any evidence. However, if the representations acted as the catalyst for the consequent loss of the potential customer, that is sufficient to amount to a material cause of the loss.
9. I accept that the wide publication of the TikTok video in particular, coupled with the Facebook post, was more likely than not to have caused some potential customers to reconsider their intention to engage Singh Homes as their custom builder.
10. I accept that a precise mathematical calculation of the exact loss is not possible, and that the loss is to be ascertained by reference to hypotheses and possibilities, and evaluated as a matter of informed estimation.
11. I do not entirely accept the assessments assigned to the claimed losses by the plaintiffs. In some cases they are overly optimistic. I make the following assessments:

(a) Client 1, there is insufficient evidence to persuade me that Client 1 would have signed with Singh Homes and was dissuaded from doing so because of the representations.

(b) Client 2 had signed a concept plan. I accept the evidence that a client who signs a concept plan is highly likely to go ahead with a building contract. I accept that Client 2 did not go ahead with the contract because of the representations. I assess the loss to Singh Homes of Client 2 in the amount of $123,000.

(c) Client 3 had not signed a concept plan but had had considerable engagement with Singh Homes. I consider there is a 50% likelihood that Client 3 would have progressed to signing a building contract with Singh Homes, and the representations were a material cause of the loss of Client 3. I assess the loss to Singh Homes of Client 3 in the amount of $185,000.

(d) Client 4 was very early in the process. There was no address assigned to the building. There is insufficient evidence for me to accept that the representations were a cause of any loss to Singh Homes.

(e) Clients 5 and 6 had signed concept plans. I accept the evidence that this is a very strong indicator that the clients would have signed a building contract. I accept on the evidence that the representations were a material cause of the loss of Clients 5 and 6. I assess the loss to Singh Homes of Clients 5 and 6 as $82,000 and $51,000 respectively.

(f) Concept plans had been prepared for Client 7 but had not yet been signed. There was no evidence put as to the likelihood that a concept plan would be signed once it had been prepared, but I infer from the available evidence that once a client has got to the stage where a concept plan has been drawn up, they are serious, having invested time and energy into the process. I assign a 50% likelihood to the prospect that Client 7 would have signed with Singh Homes and did not do so as a result of the representations. I assess the loss to Singh Homes of Client 7 in the amount of $37,000.

(g) Client 8 was comparing Singh Homes with another builder. Although there was evidence that the client "got scared", there was insufficient evidence for me to be satisfied that Client 8 was dissuaded from signing with Singh Homes because of the representations.

(h) There was insufficient evidence for me to be satisfied that Client 9 would have signed with Singh Homes, or that the representations were the cause of loss to Singh Homes. No address had been identified for the potential building and there was no evidence that Client 9 had committed significant time and energy to the process.

(i) Client 10 had signed a concept plan. I accept the evidence that this meant Client 10 was very likely to sign a building contract. The client cited the social media reviews and "videos" as a cause for concern. Although the evidence suggests that Client 10 might have viewed the other video, as well as Mr Singh's video, and may have seen social media posts other than the Facebook post, the fact that Client 10 had signed the concept plan without apparent regard for these pre-existing publications causes me to infer that, at least, Mr Singh's representations were the catalyst for further social media investigation and therefore a material cause of the loss of his business to Singh Homes. I assess the loss to Singh Homes of Client 10 in the amount of $185,000.

(j) Client 11 cited the TikTok video as the reason he changed his mind. However he was at a very early stage of the process. I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the representations were the cause of the loss of this client, nor that he was ever going to sign with Singh Homes.

(k) Client 12 had seen a number of builders. Although he cited the video as a cause of concern, there is insufficient evidence to persuade me that he would have gone ahead with Singh Homes or that the representations were a material cause of any loss to Singh Homes.

1. The total assessment of the loss of business profits to Singh Homes as a result of the representations is $635,000.

Did Singh Homes, Mr Anand, or Mr Sarwara suffer a loss of commercial reputation as a result of the representations?

1. Singh Homes relies on the evidence of the significant downturn in the number of concept plans signed during the three-month period directly after the representations were made to show that it suffered a loss of commercial reputation. However, other than the 12 lost clients detailed in relation to the loss of profits claim, it is not clear to me that there were actual, likely customers of Singh Homes who did not sign concept plans during that period as a result of the representations.
2. Presumably the process of signing a concept plan takes some time. The customer must make an inquiry, meet with a sales agent, discuss their needs, decide on the appropriate plan, potentially decide on the location where the home will be built, and so on. It was apparent from the evidence that sales agents can be in discussions with potential clients for many months before ever getting to the concept plan stage.
3. The reduction in the number of concept plans signed in the immediate aftermath of the representations seems unlikely to be solely or mainly attributable to the representations. People who were already at the stage of being likely to sign concept plans with Singh Homes would be included in the 12 lost clients. Other people, not yet known to Singh Homes, would be unlikely to have reached the concept plan stage in February or even March. I infer that a highly motivated client might race through the process and could have signed a concept plan by April. But I am not satisfied on the evidence that most of the reduction in signing of concept plans could be attributed to the representations.
4. I accept the possibility that some people who would otherwise have gone ahead with Singh Homes might have been turned off and decided not to contact them at all because of the representations.
5. The evidence suggests that a very significant concern that members of the public raised with employees of Singh Homes was whether the company remained solvent. The representations were made at a time when other major building companies had become insolvent.
6. I infer that concerns that Bunnings and other suppliers may have had in relation to extending credit to Singh Homes in the immediate aftermath of the representations were more likely to arise from a concern about solvency, rather than any concern about the workmanship or customer service provided by Singh Homes.
7. Representations that the business was not solvent or was entering into liquidation were not made by Mr Singh in either the Facebook post or the TikTok video. These were allegations made in third-party comments. For the purposes of the s18 ACL claims, Mr Singh is not liable for misleading and deceptive representations made by others.
8. I accept that the negative Google reviews left after the representations by "Sid" and others were overwhelmingly likely to be reviews connected to Mr Singh. Whether he asked his friends and relatives to leave negative reviews, or whether they did so of their own accord after hearing of his experience, is not relevant. For the purposes of the s18 ACL claims, he is not the maker of the representations. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not satisfied that these negative reviews were a material cause of any loss of commercial reputation to the plaintiffs.
9. Nevertheless, I am satisfied on the evidence that the downturn in calls and "leads" for potential customers were both likely to be attributable, in part, to the representations, given the timing of the downturn and its proximity to the representations.
10. It is impossible to determine how much of that downturn in inquiries was caused by the representations, how much was caused by other allegations, such as insolvency, and how much was related to other factors. It is also impossible to determine what the consequences were for the business of a reduction in inquiries, attributable to the representations. How many of those inquiries would have resulted in signed contracts that afforded a profit to Singh Homes would be simply a matter of speculation. I am prepared, in line with the principles for assessing damages of this kind, to accept that there was some loss of commercial reputation. However in the absence of any evidence showing an actual financial loss, it is appropriate to make a modest allowance for a loss of commercial reputation to Singh Homes in the amount of $10,000.
11. In relation to Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara, as the directors of Singh Homes, I accept that a loss of reputation suffered by their business could reflect on their own commercial reputations. I infer that, on the balance of probabilities, they sustained some minor and temporary loss of commercial reputation due to their association with Singh Homes.
12. The evidence supports a finding that the loss of commercial reputation to Singh Homes and its directors was only temporary. The rate at which concept plans were signed in the 15 months following the representations exceeded the rate at which they were signed before that time. The commercial reputation of Singh Homes and its directors is likely to have been restored.
13. I consider a nominal sum of $5000 each is appropriate compensation for a minor and temporary loss of commercial reputation suffered by Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara.
14. Accordingly, I assess damages pursuant to s18 of the ACL as follows:

(a) For the first plaintiff in the amount of $645,000;

(b) For the second plaintiff in the amount of $5000;

(c) For the third plaintiff in the amount of $5000.

1. The plaintiffs accept that, in the event they were successful in establishing a loss pursuant to s18 of the ACL, there was no utility in assessing their claims in injurious falsehood, given that they cannot recover the same loss twice.

1. Section 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) requires that a plaintiff prove serious harm to reputation in order to succeed in a defamation claim.
2. The cases establish a number of factors that are relevant to an assessment of serious harm:

(a) Serious harm is more than substantial harm but does not have to be grave harm.

(b) The tendency of the words themselves to cause harm is a factor to be considered.

(c) Even where words amount to a grave allegation against a plaintiff, more than a "mere tendency" of the words to cause serious harm is required to establish the element. The circumstances of publication are important.

(d) The extent of publication, including the grapevine effect, is a factor to be considered in assessing serious harm, as is the likelihood that the publication will come to the notice of other people.

(e) Who published the publication and the identity of the recipients is relevant in considering serious harm.[128]

(f) Serious harm should not be conflated with hurt feelings, however distraught the plaintiff may be as a result of the publications.

(g) There may be serious harm without permanent harm.[129]

(h) Prior bad reputation is part of the serious harm test and, to the extent that good character was presumed at common law, such a presumption has not survived the enactment of s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic).[130]

(i) Nevertheless, a person with a tarnished reputation may still suffer serious harm to that reputation but the harm caused by the impugned publication may need to be greater in order to meet the s10A threshold than for a person of unblemished reputation.[131]

(j) Third-party communications and comments posted online by those who saw or heard the relevant publication can be evidence of reputational harm.[132]

(k) There must be actual evidence of harm to reputation, even if it is inferential evidence. Harm is not presumed.[133]

1. I will deal with the submissions and my findings in relation to both Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara together, given that there was no attempt by either party to distinguish harm done by the publication to Mr Anand from harm done to Mr Sarwara.

Do the words in the TikTok video tend to cause serious harm to reputation?

1. The words used convey imputations that both Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara were "dodgy" builders, ripped off their customers, were unqualified and caused harm to Mr Singh by being neglectful, ignoring him, and making unreasonable demands of him.
2. The tenor of the imputations related to the manner in which Mr Anand and Mr Singh conducted their business. The words have a tendency to cause professional damage and potentially personal damage. A person who is considered unscrupulous or "dodgy" in their business dealings would be a person without a good personal reputation. I am satisfied that there is an inherent tendency of the words to cause harm to reputation, albeit that the allegations are not of the most serious kind. I am not persuaded that the inherent tendency of the words is to cause serious harm.

1. There was evidence that a great many people saw the publication. As well as direct evidence from individuals who had seen the publication, and from Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara about the personal inquiries they had had from people who had seen the publication, the TikTok video was viewed about 220,000 times.
2. Even if the spread of the publication was confined solely to those who viewed it on TikTok, it would be considered wide publication. Given that the TikTok video was in Punjabi, I can infer that the overwhelming majority of people who viewed the video understood Punjabi and therefore were likely to be people within the Indian community, either within or outside Australia. I accept the evidence that the video was also shared within the community via WhatsApp messages. It is likely that the TikTok video was also discussed within the community.
3. To the extent that the defamatory imputations were spread beyond the Punjabi speaking community, particularly into the building industry within Australia, it is likely that this was via the grapevine effect, namely, people talking about the content of the video, rather than by non-Punjabi speaking people watching the video themselves.

What was the quality of the publication and the publisher?

1. The publication was very plainly made by a disgruntled client of Singh Homes. It was not published by a reputable news organisation based on reliable sources.
2. It purports to be an account of Mr Singh's own experience. For this reason, it is likely that viewers would consider Mr Singh had personal knowledge of the events he was describing, but would also be likely to understand that his views were coloured by his unhappy personal experience.
3. Nevertheless, firsthand accounts of experiences can be both powerful and persuasive. At least some of the people who viewed the video would be likely to consider the allegations were true, particularly as Mr Singh said he had "all the proofs".[134] Mr Singh said major faults were found "in everything" which he had sent on a daily basis to "all supervisors and directors".[135] He went on "I will mention the names of all of them here, like directors Goldie, Daman and supervisors Anthony, Rhode, Julian and Askar, but no one listened to me".[136]
4. At this point in the video, it is clear that he was blaming all the directors and supervisors for failing to listen to him. At a later point he said "Daman, Goldie can only give orders from office, but neither the supervisor nor anyone else is checking on the site".[137] This identifies Mr Sarwara, who was known by the nickname "Goldie", and Mr Anand. These are the only two parts of the video where Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand are identified. Only those who know Mr Anand's first name is Daman, and only those who know that Mr Sarwara's nickname is "Goldie", would have connected Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand to the publication.
5. It is likely that the number of people who were so aware was a subset of the total of those who viewed the publication. It is likely that the number of people who believed the allegations was a further subset.
6. However, because of the wide distribution of the publication, it is likely that, notwithstanding the circumstances of its publication, it was likely to be believed by a certain number of people, and was consequently likely to do reputational damage to Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara within their community.

Did Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara otherwise have good reputations?

1. A fundamental principle of tort law is that a defendant is liable only for the harm it has caused. Where a plaintiff's reputation has been damaged, other than because of the impugned publication, the plaintiff must prove that the harm caused by the impugned publication amounts to serious harm.
2. Mr Singh submitted that prior widespread publications about Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand had already caused harm to their reputations. In particular, Mr Singh pointed to a number of publications on Product Review that ranged in date from 16 June 2018 to March 2024.[138] Mr Singh submits that the principle that a person has a good reputation until proven otherwise no longer applies.
3. Mr Singh relied on an affidavit of Mr Ranjit Singh dated 14 August 2025. Mr Ranjit said he signed a contract with Singh Homes on Mr Singh's recommendation in 2022.[139] In 2023 he saw a "TikTok video where someone was unhappy with Singh Homes and complained about the build quality".[140] Mr Ranjit did not know who had posted the video. Shortly after watching the video he began discussing his home build experience with friends and, during some of those conversations the name Singh Homes came up. When Singh Homes was mentioned, the reaction of his friends was "usually negative" and they would make comments like "we've heard a lot of complaints about Singh Homes - poor workmanship and bad customer service".[141]
4. Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara both submitted that they had good reputations within the building industry and the Indian community.
5. Each of Mr Anand, Mr Sarwara and Mr Singh has tended, in submissions and evidence, to conflate evidence in relation to Singh Homes with evidence in relation to their respective personal reputations.
6. It is understandable that the company that Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara established and grew should feel intricately involved with their personal reputations. However, the jury made a finding that, in relation to the Facebook post, where Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara were not named, they were not in fact identified. That is, the jury was not persuaded on the evidence that Singh Homes was so closely identified with Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara that allegations about Singh Homes were sufficient to establish identification for the purposes of a defamation claim. I am bound by those findings.
7. In any event, the evidence did not establish that allegations about Singh Homes would pertain to Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara, or either of them.
8. The evidence relied on by Mr Singh to establish a prior bad reputation does not go to the reputation of either Mr Anand or Mr Sarwara, but to the reputation of Singh Homes. Mr Ranjit's evidence does not mention Mr Anand or Mr Sarwara. Neither does any of the prior publications on which Mr Singh relies.
9. On the other hand, Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara relied on direct evidence that they personally had good reputations.
10. I am not satisfied that there is any substance to the submission that Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara had prior bad reputations, such that the TikTok video did no further harm.

Evidence of serious harm to reputation alleged by Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara

1. Mr Anand said he felt blamed and ashamed as a result of the Facebook post and the TikTok video.
2. He felt people who he knew were ignoring him and "for a while" he withdrew from public events which he had previously attended regularly.[142] He said his hypertension had worsened and he had anxiety about the video and its circulation. He had received many phone calls, including one from Canada and one from Dubai.
3. Mr Sarwara said he received many links to the TikTok video from people and every day he had to explain to people what had happened with the defendant. He said that for at least six months people were constantly asking him about it. The video made him very upset. He worried that people would believe anything they saw on TikTok. He was very stressed. His blood pressure increased. He could not get up in the mornings and at times he could not walk. He had difficulty concentrating at work. He felt he lost his reputation. He said trades were asking him if they would get paid. It became more difficult for Singh Homes to get trades to do work. There were a number of incidents where he met people and felt they distanced themselves from him when they found out he was a director of Singh Homes. This happened at a friend's party and he stopped going to so many parties. On another occasion, he met a young man at Crown Casino and was introduced to the man's father. When the father found out he was a director of Singh Homes he laughed. After that "their mood completely changed and they were not nice to me". [143] He felt judged badly.
4. Akshal Kumar said there was definitely "a question about the reputations of Singh Homes, Parvinder and Daman" after the publications.[144] He said he observed this because "people were suddenly asking me if Singh Homes was going to be around, or whether it was going down".[145] He noticed Mr Sarwara seemed stressed and told him he was not sleeping. He noted Mr Anand also seemed to be stressed around that time.
5. Rhodes MacKenzie said he could see that the TikTok video had a big impact on Singh Homes' brand and the reputations of Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand. He observed they were stressed, angry and sad. From his observations, Ms Sarwara and Mr Anand were respected members of the Indian community and their integrity was brought into question by the publications.
6. Inderjeet Singh Rakkar gave evidence that people in the Indian community looked up to Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand and they were highly respected in the building industry. Mr Sarwara was involved in many community events such as the Sikh Games. After the first publication he received phone calls from people he knew who were concerned Singh Homes was going bankrupt. Lots of people spoke to him about the TikTok video. He said about 8-10 people spoke with him about it. He said afterwards "the reputations" of Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand "have gone down in a lot of ways", and that they "got less respect and people questioned their integrity".[146]
7. Gurcharan Singh said many people spoke to him about the TikTok video. He said it was "especially damaging" because it referred to "Daman and Parvinder by name, it was long and people watched it on TikTok and WhatsApp".[147] He said "there were talks about the TikTok video in the Indian Community".[148]
8. Sudhir Bansal is a builder with his own company who has worked in the building industry for about 17 years. He is a member of the Indian community. He said his son showed him the TikTok video and at least 20-30 people spoke to him about the video. Before the video he said Singh Homes had a very good reputation. After the video he said "people were saying that Singh Homes was doing the wrong thing and running its business the wrong way. People were speaking negatively about Singh Homes".[149]
9. Ravinder Kapoor is a real estate agent and has known Singh Homes and its directors, Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara, for over a decade. He said he saw the TikTok video, and that it was sent to him on WhatsApp. He always considered Singh Homes had a good reputation. He said a good reputation and a good social media presence are very important in business. He said the video had an "immediate negative effect on me on the reputation of Singh Homes and the directors".[150]
10. Vikkas Dhingra runs a real estate business. He says he knows Singh Homes well and has done business with it. He said he saw the TikTok video and a lot of people in the community spoke about it at the time. He said at that time whenever there was anything negative about a builder "people thought they were going under".[151] He said he heard people say things like "there goes another builder".[152] Prior to the video, Singh Homes and its directors had very good reputations.

Did the second publication cause serious harm to Mr Anand's and Mr Sarwara's reputation?

1. I am not persuaded that either Mr Anand or Mr Sarwara suffered serious harm to their reputation as a result of the TikTok video.
2. Although the words themselves had an inherent tendency to cause harm, the publication was widespread and was likely to have been believed by at least a portion of the viewers; there was no evidence of actual harm to reputation.
3. Numerous witnesses gave evidence that they were asked about the TikTok video, but that evidence was almost always in relation to whether Singh Homes was going into liquidation. The harm attested to by Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara was confined to personal feelings of hurt and distress. While I have no doubt that the personal hurt and distress were real, this is not relevant for the purposes of determining serious harm to reputation.
4. Mr Anand had a "feeling" that people avoided him for a period, but cited no examples of this.[153] Mr Sarwara relied on two instances where he had been subjected to behaviour that demonstrated his reputation had been harmed. One was where a person's demeanour appeared to change when that person found out Mr Sarwara was a director of Singh Homes, and another was when he felt that people avoided him at a party. These individual examples are insufficient, in my view, to amount to serious harm to reputation.
5. A feeling of shame and a consequence of avoiding public situations, while real and unhappy consequences of defamatory publications, is not sufficient evidence of actual harm to reputation.
6. While there might have been difficulty in Singh Homes obtaining trades, that does not establish that it was because the personal reputations of Mr Anand or Mr Sarwara had been harmed. It is more likely a consequence of the concern that Singh Homes was insolvent or having financial difficulties.
7. Other witnesses asserted that Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara had suffered harm to their reputations but relied on examples that demonstrated harm to Singh Homes. Broad assertions that Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara had suffered harm to their reputations are insufficient to support a finding of serious harm to reputation.
8. I accept that the imputations were likely to have, at least for a period, impacted the personal reputations of Mr Anand and Mr Sarwara to those who knew of their connection to Singh Homes. I am not persuaded that the harm caused amounted to serious harm.
9. Accordingly, the defamation claims of both Mr Sarwara and Mr Anand are dismissed.

1. The plaintiffs seek the following injunctive relief:

(a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing or causing to publish or continuing to publish, whether by himself, his officers or employees or agents or otherwise howsoever, any material to the same purport or effect as the publications, whether at common law or pursuant to section 232 of the Australian Consumer Law.

(b) a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant to remove each of the publications referred to in the statement of claim from the world wide web, whether at common law or pursuant to section 232 of the Australian Consumer Law.

1. Section 232 of the Australian Consumer Law provides:

A court may grant an injunction, in such terms as the court considers appropriate, if the court is satisfied that a person has engaged, or is proposing to engage, in conduct that constitutes or would constitute:

(a) A contravention of a provision of Chapter 2, 3 or 4; or

(b) Attempting to contravene such a provision; or

(c) Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a person to contravene such a provision; ....

1. The jury concluded that the defendant had contravened section 18 of the ACL and accordingly, the court may grant an injunction pursuant to section 232 of the ACL. The plaintiffs submit that the circumstances of this case support the Court granting such an injunction.
2. I am satisfied that an injunction in the terms sought is appropriate. Prior to the publications the defendant repeatedly threatened to go to social media in order to put pressure on the plaintiffs to accede to his demands. I have already found that he was instrumental in coordinating or encouraging others to express negative views about Singh Homes in Google Reviews. Mr Singh continued throughout the trial to consider that his representations were true and that he was entitled to ventilate those opinions. There is a risk that, if not restrained, he will continue to publish misrepresentations about the plaintiffs.
3. Although I have not been satisfied that the second and third defendants have made out serious harm to reputation, the jury was satisfied that the imputations were conveyed and were defamatory. I have found that the representations caused damage to the plaintiffs' commercial reputations.
4. To the extent that it is possible for Mr Singh to remove the representations from the internet, I will order that he do so, noting that there may be copies of the publications that are not controlled by him, or not accessible to him.

(a) Judgment is entered in the following amounts:

(i) For the first plaintiff, $673,000;

(ii) For the second plaintiff $5,000; and

(iii) For the third plaintiff $5,000.

(b) The defendant is restrained from publishing or causing to publish or continuing to publish, whether by himself, his officers or employees or agents or otherwise howsoever, any material to the same purport or effect as the representations and imputations found, by the jury, to have been conveyed by the publications

(c) The defendant is to take all reasonable steps to remove from the internet the publications referred to in the statement of claim.

[2] CB 1375-76; 654-658; 1382-1387; 667-669

[13] Murphv v Overton Investments Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 3; 216 CLR 388

[14] Flogineering Pty Ltd v Blu Logistics SA Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] FCA 1258 at [27] and Flogineering Pty Ltd v Blu Logistics SA Pty Ltd (No 4) [2021] FCA 1219

[15] Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL [1994] HCA 4; s236 ACL

[16] Henville v Walker [2001] HCA 52; 206 CLR 459

[17] March v Stramare E & MH Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506

[18] Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL [1994] HCA 4; 179 CLR 332; affirmed in Berry v CCL Secure Pty Ltd [2020] HCA 27

[19]Keys Consulting Pty Ltd v CAT Enterprises Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 136 at [52]; Melinkov & Anor v Vainer & Anor [2019] VSCA 283 at [44]

[20] Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] VSC 521 ("Wilson") at [59]; [59(b)] citing Hockley v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 652; (2015) 237 FCR 33 at [446]; Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176, 195 (Mahoney A-CJ), applied in John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O'Shane (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 291 at [3]; Wilson at [59(c)] citing Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44, 61 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ); Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176, 194 (Mahoney A-CJ); Wilson at [59(d)], [59(f)]; Belbin v Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation [2012] VSC 535; (2014) 43 VR 348 at 388-390 [110]- [112]; Wilson at [59(g)] citing Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44, 71 (Brennan J)

[21] Wilson at [84]-[88]; Ford Motor Co of Australia Ltd v Arrowcrest Group Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 313; 134 FCR 522; Finishing Services Pty Ltd v Lactos Fresh Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 177; Digi-Tech v Brand [2004] NSWCA 58; Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd v Sydney Catchment Authority (No 3) [2006] NSWCA 282; (2006 67 NSWLR 341

[22] Madden v Seafolly Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 30 ("Seafolly") at [47]; Typing Centre of NSW Pty Ltd v Northern Business College Ltd (1989) 13 IPR 627 at [641]

[23] Ductline Pty Ltd v Arcric Investments Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 1517; 32 IPR 419

[25] Mandeep Pal Affidavit at [17]; Affidavit Book ("AB") 43; pages 84-133 of MP-1; AB 122-71

[26] Mandeep Pal Affidavit at [5]; AB 40

[28] Pooja Affidavit at [11]; AB 281, pages 8-9 of PR-1; AB 286-287

[29] Pooja Affidavit at [12(b)], [14]; AB 281-282

[30] Pooja Affidavit at [13]; pages 10-44 of PR-1; AB 288-322

[35] Pooja Affidavit at [22]; AB 283; pages 70-86 of PR-1; AB 348-64

[36] Pooja Affidavit at [22]; AB 283; pages 87-142 od PR-1; AB 365-420

[39] Pooja Affidavit at [26]; AB 283-4; pages 144-170 of PR-1; AB 422-48

[40] Bhatia Affidavit at [13]; AB 248

[41] Bhatia Affidavit at [13]; AB 248

[42] Bhatia Affidavit at [13]; AB 248

[43] Bhatia Affidavit at [13]; AB 248; page 6 of SB-1; AB 251

[44] Bhatia Affidavit at [14]; AB 248; pages 7-32 of SB1; AB 252-77

[45] Bhatia Affidavit at [15]; AB 248; page 33 of SB-1; AB 278

[46] Bhatia Affidavit at [16]: AB 249; page 33 of SB-1; AB 278

[47] Mandeep Pal Affidavit at [12]; AB 42

[48] Mandeep Pal Affidavit at [14(a)]; AB 42, page 83 of MP-1; AB 121

[49] Narinder Affidavit at [6]; AB 216

[50] Narinder Affidavit at [7]; AB 216

[51] Narinder Affidavit at [8]; AB 216

[52] Narinder Affidavit at [10]; AB 217

[53] Narinder Affidavit at [11]; AB 217

[54] Narinder Affidavit at [13]; AB 217

[57] Mandeep Pal Affidavit at [7]; AB 41

[58] Narinder Choudhary Affidavit at [5]; AB 216

[60] Kumar Affidavit at [3]-[4]; AB 15-16

[61] Kumar Affidavit at [4]-[6]; AB 16

[62] MacKenzie Affidavit at [2]-[3]; AB 26

[63] MacKenzie Affidavit at [5]; AB 27

[64] MacKenzie Affidavit at [13]; AB 28

[65] MacKenzie Affidavit at [15]; AB 29

[66] MacKenzie Affidavit at [17]; AB 29

[67] MacKenzie Affidavit at [18]; AB 29

[68] MacKenzie Affidavit at [27]; AB 31

[76] Rakkar Affidavit at [30(b)]; AB 37

[77] Gurcharan Singh Affidavit at [5]-[6]; AB 506

[80] Bansal Affidavit at [4] - [5]; AB 507-508

[82] Dhingra Affidavit at [4]; AB 511

[83] Dhingra Affidavit at [4]; AB 512

[97] CB 2075-2078; 2081-2085; 2095-2098

[110] CB 2079-2080; 2087-2093; 2099-2100; 2104

[122] TikTok video by Gurmal Singh dated 20 October 2023; Transcription and translation of TikTok video by Gurmal Singh dated 20 October 2023, translated 18 June 2025 at [7]-[8]

[123] TikTok video by Gurmal Singh dated 20 October 2023; Transcription and translation of TikTok video by Gurmal Singh dated 20 October 2023, translated 18 June 2025 at [4]-[5]

[128] Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] QSC 192 ("Peros"); Mannoun v Ritevski [2024] NSWDC 564

[129] Rader v Haines [2022] NSWCA 198

[130] Selkirk v Wyatt [2024] FCAFC 48; (2024) 302 FCR 541

[132] Deeming v Pesutto (No 3) [2024] FCA 1430

[138] CB 2075-2078; 2081-2085; 2096-2098

[139] Affidavit of Mr Ranjit Singh dated 14 August 2025, at [3]

[143] Parvinder Affidavit at [30; AB 12

[144] Kumar Affidavit at [10]; AB 16

[146] Rakkar Affidavit at [30a]; AB 37

[147] Gurcharan Singh Affidavit at [7]; AB 506

[149] Bansal Affidavit at [5]; AB 507-508

[150] Kapoor Affidavit at [4]; AB 509

[151] Dhingra Affidavit at [5]; AB 511