A recent High Court ruling has highlighted the serious consequences of defamatory statements on social media, with Justice Deepthi Amaratunga ordering real estate agent Reginald Jokhan to pay $50,000 in damages for harmful posts about fellow agent Anand Krishna Goundar. This decision, issued on November 27, determined that Jokhan’s remarks on the Land for Sale Fiji page and a circulated email inaccurately portrayed Goundar as dishonest and greedy.
Justice Amaratunga clearly stated that Jokhan’s comments on public platforms such as Facebook do not qualify as privileged occasions for disseminating damaging information. The ruling emphasized public policy against such statements, characterizing them not merely as opinions but as serious allegations presented as facts. The court dismissed Jokhan’s claims that Goundar inflated prices and misled clients, asserting that his pricing strategies were based on a legitimate Exclusive Agency Agreement.
The court rejected Jokhan’s defenses of fair comment and qualified privilege, underscoring that spreading false information is indefensible. The judge highlighted the necessity of truthfulness in public statements, articulating, “There cannot be moral duty to state falsehood or unverified facts.”
Moreover, the ruling addressed the substantial harm that can stem from online expressions, referencing Fiji’s Online Safety Act. Justice Amaratunga remarked on the viral potential of social media platforms like Facebook, which heightens the risk of reputational damage. Evidence presented to the court revealed that Goundar endured significant harm, including financial losses, emotional distress, and marital problems due to Jokhan’s defamatory comments.
In addition to the damages awarded, which included $40,000 in general damages and $10,000 in aggravated or exemplary damages, the ruling signified the vital need to deter reckless online behavior. Jokhan is also obligated to cover $3,500 in legal costs within 21 days, further demonstrating the court’s resolve to combat online defamation. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the responsibilities tied to sharing information on social media and the potential legal ramifications for defamatory remarks, reinforcing the importance of accountability in online communications.