Published on:
10 Jul 2023
4
min read
On submitting online reviews, suing over defamatory statements, and the Streisand effect.
[H/t to Mike Chiam D.M. for highlighting this case!]
DF is a lawyer. She was friends with MC, but they had a falling out.
MC then:
a) posted a public review on The Law Society of Singapore’s (“LSS”) Google page, in which she made uncomplimentary remarks about DF; and
b) lodged a written complaint with the LSS, making various allegations against DF.
DF issued a letter of demand, demanding that MC make a public apology and pay S$100,000 to DF. MC did not comply.
What did DF do?
Why, she sued MC for #defamation, of course.
The matter went to trial. DF succeeded. The Court found MC liable for defamation.
Vindication, and a happy ending, for DF?
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
---
Some observations and takeaways, for those considering suing for defamation.
1. The Streisand effect.
The Streisand effect "is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead backfires by increasing awareness of that information."¹
If you Google "[DF's name] lawyer", the Judgment comes up on the first page of results. The Judgment would not have been issued if DF had not sued.
And so the irony is this: although DF sued in order to protect her reputation, her act of suing caused MC's statements to be broadcast to a wider audience.² See footnotes for a more detailed analysis.³
So if you want to sue someone for defamation, ask your lawyers for their thoughts on the potential Streisand effect, and whether the risk is worth taking.
And if your lawyers look puzzled, and ask you what is the Streisand effect... well, at least you now know at least one lawyer who's alive to the issue.
2. Costs.
Most of you would know that if you successfully bring a claim in the Singapore Courts, you will generally be awarded legal costs.
However, you will generally not be awarded legal costs on a reimbursement basis. Almost always, the legal costs actually incurred will exceed the legal costs awarded.⁴
For defamation claims in particular:
a) they involve a fairly technical area of law, which often causes the legal costs incurred to be on the higher side; but
b) in many cases, the damages awarded may not even hit the High Court threshold.
As such, in many defamation cases, even a claimant who succeeds completely in their claim may still be left out of pocket.⁵
Now, there are definitely situations where the value of vindicating one's reputation outweighs the financial cost.
But when deciding whether to sue someone for defamation, please do some scenario planning with your lawyers. Ensure that you can live with the possibility of succeeding completely in your claim - but still being left worse off financially.
And if your lawyers tell you that you are sure to win, and that you should sue to secure a positive financial outcome...
I reserve comment.
Disclaimer:
The content of this article is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect.
² Conversely, if DF had not sued, the publication of MC's statements would likely have been more limited. MC apparently took down the offending Google review even before DF commenced legal proceedings (see [45] of the Judgment), and the written complaint was sent to the LSS only, and not the wider public.
³ Some of you will say: but DF's been vindicated! So what's the issue with MC's statements being broadcast more widely, along with the Court's finding that they are defamatory and untrue?
And you have a point.
But:
a) what if DF had not succeeded in her claim? Then MC's statements would have been broadcast more widely, but perhaps without any finding from the Court that the statements were untrue; and
b) even though DF succeeded, the Court did make certain findings as to DF's actions, which may not have been DF's preference. In particular, the Court held that (i) DF and MC had "exchanged... affectionate messages with each other" (see [65] of the Judgment); and (ii) "[v]ulgarities were... frequently used by [DF] in her interactions with [MC]" (see [69] of the Judgment).
In this case, DF's decision to sue may or may not have caused her reputation to be adversely affected. But this is nevertheless a real risk.
⁴ This is why it doesn't make commercial sense to engage lawyers to sue someone for, say, $100 or $1,000. Let's say the legal fees that you had to pay to your lawyers came up to S$250,000. The Court is unlikely to order the losing party to pay you costs of S$250,000. It might be something closer to S$150,000 or S$200,000. So even if you succeed and are awarded legal costs, you will be out of pocket once you factor in the actual legal costs incurred.
These are obviously hypothetical numbers, but the point remains that almost always, there will be a shortfall that you will have to make up out of your own pocket.
⁵ It remains undecided as to just how much damages MC will be ordered to pay to DF, and I make no comment on the likely amount of damages. I note also that DF will likely still have to incur legal costs for the assessment of damages.
⁶ I believe this is the first time that my footnotes are long enough to require 3 separate comments. As if post character limits weren't enough to contend with already...
[2023] SGHC 221
