Defamatory statements made by defendants were found to be untrue and damaging to the plaintiff's reputation, with malice evident in their publication, leading to awarded damages.

JUDGMENT

Jamhirah Ali J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff's claim is based on allegations of defamation against the Defendants, arising from seven (7) defamatory statements in nine (9) publications made by the respective Defendants against the Plaintiff.

[2] The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, as well as general, aggravated, and exemplary damages.

[3] The Defendants filed a counterclaim for breach of contract, seeking the return of commissions and bonuses paid to the Plaintiff.

Brief Facts

The Plaintiff's Case

[4] In April 2019, the Plaintiff joined the 3rd defendant, Kalysta, as a sales representative and quickly rose through the ranks. Within Kalysta, sales representatives are organised into groups known as "families", each led by a leader.

[5] The Plaintiff co-founded and led the "SOULUV" group, which achieved top sales for 2019 and 2020, making her Kalysta's highest-ranked sales representative with a team of over 400 members.

[6] However, on 26 June 2021, her role as a sales representative for Kalysta was abruptly terminated.

WeChat Group 1 And WeChat Group 3

[7] On 16 July 2021, at around 10:25 pm., the 1st defendant published or facilitated the publication of a message in two Kalysta sales representative WeChat groups, which contained defamatory statements about the Plaintiff. At the time, WeChat Group 1 had 297 members and WeChat Group 3 had 318 members. The message implied that the Plaintiff was dishonest, lacked credibility, manipulated others, damaged Kalysta's culture, and plotted against Kalysta for personal gain, among other negative characterisations.

[8] These statements were defamatory and untrue, constituting serious libel against the Plaintiff. The message painted the Plaintiff as a schemer, compulsive liar, irresponsible leader, and someone with questionable moral values. It presented a highly damaging portrayal that affected the Plaintiff's standing within Kalysta.

[9] Following the WeChat message, the 1st defendant announced an emergency Zoom meeting at 10:30 pm. that same evening, where they and other group leaders would address the situation involving the Plaintiff. A new WeChat group for the Zoom meeting was created shortly before, including over 200 sales representatives from Kalysta. Members were instructed to contact their group leaders for the meeting link.

The Zoom Meeting

[10] On 17 July 2021, at approximately 2:37 am., during a Zoom meeting with over 200 Kalysta sales representatives, the 1st defendant made two defamatory statements about the Plaintiff. The statements, referred to as Zoom Defamatory Statement No 1 and Zoom Defamatory Statement No 2, painted the Plaintiff in a highly negative light, insinuating that she was deceitful, manipulative, and engaged in actions to harm others for her own gain.

[11] Zoom Defamatory Statement No 1 implied that the Plaintiff was a schemer who carefully planned her actions, used trickery, and crafted excuses to justify her behaviour. Zoom Defamatory Statement No 2 went further, alleging that she had purposely harmed a previous brand and its product, leading to significant losses and negative repercussions for its agents. The statements suggested that she caused irreversible damage to others, was ungrateful and acted selfishly to benefit personally at others' expense.

[12] These defamatory statements were not only untrue but also amounted to serious slander intended to harm the Plaintiff's reputation in her trade and business. The remarks were broadcast to a large group of her peers, impacting her standing within Kalysta and her professional community.

WeChat SOULUV Group

[13] On 24 July 2021, at approximately 12:29 am., the 1st defendant posted a defamatory message about the Plaintiff in the SOULUV WeChat Group, which included 404 Kalysta sales representatives. The statement attacked the Plaintiff's character, portraying her as insincere, unethical, and untrustworthy. Specifically, the message implied that she was superficial, greedy, hypocritical, and ungrateful, among other