A Melbourne homeowner now faces a liability exceeding one million dollars after a TikTok video that criticized a local builder went viral, prompting a court to award $883,000 in damages to the construction firm and its directors.
Homeowner’s TikTok post sparks massive judgment
Gurvinderpal Singh was ordered on October 28 to pay $105,000 each to Parvinder Singh Sarwara and Daman Preet Singh Anand, directors of Singh Homes, in addition to $673,000 awarded to the company itself. The amounts reflect both compensatory and punitive components calculated under Victorian defamation principles, and they were imposed after a full trial that examined the parties’ evidence over several days.
Legal costs and accrued interest are expected to push the total amount owed well beyond the seven-figure mark, according to court filings. The interest will accrue at the rate prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules, meaning the final sum could increase by several thousand dollars before it is finally paid.
Richard Hutchings, a building-and-construction partner at Cornwalls law firm, described the outcome as “a win for small business” in comments to a business news outlet. He noted that the decision reinforces the idea that small-scale enterprises can obtain meaningful protection when false statements damage their reputation.
Singh had hired Singh Homes to build a house in Truganina, a suburb in Melbourne’s west, but the relationship broke down over disputed work quality and unpaid invoices, leading to contract termination in February 2024. The termination followed months of disagreement about the scope of work and the amount owed under the original building contract.
Defamation findings and appeal reversal
Following the termination, Singh posted a Punjabi-language TikTok video outlining his grievances. The clip attracted roughly 220,000 views, primarily within Melbourne’s Indian community, and was widely shared on WhatsApp, extending its reach far beyond the original platform.
Read Also: Labor Pledges Business Reforms, Tax Cuts, and Job Growth
A jury concluded the video contained defamatory statements, alleging the directors were “dodgy builders,” that they “neglected customers,” and that they made “unreasonable demands for payment.” Comments beneath the video also suggested the company was heading toward liquidation.
The jury rejected truth defences raised by the directors, finding the allegations unsubstantiated. The builder was therefore held liable for injurious falsehood and misleading or deceptive conduct, resulting in the award of $673,000 for the financial losses tied to lost business opportunities.
The firm testified that about 12 prospective clients withdrew plans to build with them after the video’s circulation. This testimony helped the court quantify the economic impact of the defamatory content.
Initially, County Court Judge Julie Clayton ruled the directors had not demonstrated the “serious reputational harm” required for a defamation claim. The Victorian Court of Appeal overturned that decision in August 2026, finding the collective evidence met the harm threshold. The appellate judges examined the evidence presented by both parties and concluded that the plaintiff’s reputation had indeed suffered measurable damage.
In the October 28 judgment, Judge Clayton granted each director $100,000 in general damages and $5,000 in aggravated damages. Director Anand reported receiving 40 to 45 phone calls about the video, including several from overseas, while Sarwara testified he felt shunned by community members and was repeatedly questioned about the firm’s finances.
The court also noted Singh’s refusal to remove the video until July 2025, despite repeated requests, as a factor in awarding aggravated damages. This persistence was seen as an aggravating circumstance that increased the penalty.
Read Also: Six sunscreens fail SPF claims in Australia
Implications for online criticism and small firms
Hutchings warned that while consumers can lodge legitimate complaints, unverified or exaggerated claims can spread far beyond their original audience, especially when amplified through community groups. He added that anyone who republishes potentially defamatory content may incur separate liability. Hutchings said, “[People] should not assume that online is a safe space, where they can say whatever they want.”
The Court of Appeal did not address whether ordinary negative reviews could breach Australian Consumer Law, leaving no precedent for businesses to sue solely over unfavorable customer feedback.
Reputational harm and free-speech responsibility highlighted by legal partner
He said people build up reputations, livelihoods and businesses, and those can be undermined easily by criticism presented as a review.
He added that the decision does not change the law. He said it simply shows that people who go too far and make statements without a proper basis can be liable. He warned that the damages may be very significant.
He noted that the power of free speech comes with a responsibility to exercise it in a fair way.
