Ranting online made him famous… but a $1 million legal battle might leave him broke
- Replies 0
A Melbourne man’s online rant could soon cost him over $1 million.
He accused a builder of insolvency, sparking viral outrage—only for a jury to find his claims were completely false.
Now, a legal reckoning looms, with major implications for how Australians use social media.
Gurvinderpal Singh faced the County Court after launching a public tirade against Singh Homes, a building firm he had engaged to construct a property in Truganina.
The jury found that Singh, who had no relation to the company, maliciously defamed the builder across multiple social media platforms, including through a widely viewed video.
At the heart of the case was a video that attracted 220,000 views and a Facebook page titled ‘Dodgy Builders Melbourne’ that gathered 50,000 followers—both of which contained statements the jury ruled were defamatory.
Mr Singh’s online campaign began after Singh Homes terminated their building contract, citing his refusal to pay for cost variations.
Key claims made by Mr Singh included accusations that the company was facing insolvency—a statement proven to be false and especially damaging in an industry already plagued by high-profile collapses.
Singh Homes’ managing director, Daman Anand, said the fallout had been devastating for their reputation.
‘It was like everything, our reputation over the years, had gone,’ he said.
He expressed hope that the verdict would restore client confidence: ‘Hopefully now we will be able to get back out and build homes, especially with the jury giving their verdict…’
Despite the ordeal, Mr Anand said legitimate reviews still had a place online—but only when based on facts.
‘This was a win for us, but also a win for all businesses unfairly targeted by fake social media campaigns,’ he added.
Singh Homes, which has operated for 16 years and builds hundreds of homes each year, has won numerous awards, including the 2024 HIA Victorian Custom Built Home award for properties valued between $1.5 million and $2 million.
During the trial, barrister Justin Castellan—representing Singh Homes—told the jury Mr Singh had ‘wreaked havoc online’ and that his statements were not grounded in fact.
‘This is an important case because the jury has sent a clear message to all social media users that…reviews based on lies cannot be used as a weapon to damage a hardworking business,’ Mr Castellan said.
He warned that even short posts could have serious consequences if they were misleading or false.
Lawyer Adam Zuchowski, acting for Singh Homes, successfully pushed for the posts to be removed—an action Mr Singh complied with.
He noted this may be Australia’s first jury decision in a defamation case involving a malicious social media campaign against a business.
‘It shows you have to be careful about putting a review online,’ Mr Zuchowski said.
He pointed out that while it’s generally acceptable to post a truthful review—such as a bad restaurant experience—there is a line when accusations become false and damaging.
Mr Zuchowski also revealed that several prospective clients walked away from Singh Homes after reading Mr Singh’s claims, contributing to over $1 million in potential losses and legal costs.
He said the false claim that liquidators were involved was especially harmful given the broader context of instability in the construction industry.
The case is due to return to court on 18 and 19 August, when the final ruling on damages will be made.
Mr Singh’s lawyer, Eimad Daniel of Daniel Legal, said he would reserve comment until after the hearing but acknowledged the case’s significance in shaping how users post about services and businesses online.
Defamation law expert Mark Stanarevic, principal at Matrix Legal, noted the broader warning this case sends.
‘People need to realise that hitting “post” on a rant or rumour can come with serious legal consequences,’ he said.
‘Online defamation is real, and the courts are taking it seriously.’
Online backlash can escalate quickly—especially when a moment is misunderstood or taken out of context.
In another case involving reputational damage, one healthcare worker faced devastating consequences after a video of her went viral.
It’s a sobering reminder of how fast things can spiral when public perception turns.
Read more: 'It was taken out of context': Nurse's life turns for the worse after her video made rounds online
Should a single post really be worth a million dollars?
He accused a builder of insolvency, sparking viral outrage—only for a jury to find his claims were completely false.
Now, a legal reckoning looms, with major implications for how Australians use social media.
Gurvinderpal Singh faced the County Court after launching a public tirade against Singh Homes, a building firm he had engaged to construct a property in Truganina.
The jury found that Singh, who had no relation to the company, maliciously defamed the builder across multiple social media platforms, including through a widely viewed video.
At the heart of the case was a video that attracted 220,000 views and a Facebook page titled ‘Dodgy Builders Melbourne’ that gathered 50,000 followers—both of which contained statements the jury ruled were defamatory.
Defamation ruling follows viral video accusations. Image source: Gurvinderpal Singh
Mr Singh’s online campaign began after Singh Homes terminated their building contract, citing his refusal to pay for cost variations.
Key claims made by Mr Singh included accusations that the company was facing insolvency—a statement proven to be false and especially damaging in an industry already plagued by high-profile collapses.
Singh Homes’ managing director, Daman Anand, said the fallout had been devastating for their reputation.
‘It was like everything, our reputation over the years, had gone,’ he said.
He expressed hope that the verdict would restore client confidence: ‘Hopefully now we will be able to get back out and build homes, especially with the jury giving their verdict…’
Despite the ordeal, Mr Anand said legitimate reviews still had a place online—but only when based on facts.
‘This was a win for us, but also a win for all businesses unfairly targeted by fake social media campaigns,’ he added.
Singh Homes, which has operated for 16 years and builds hundreds of homes each year, has won numerous awards, including the 2024 HIA Victorian Custom Built Home award for properties valued between $1.5 million and $2 million.
During the trial, barrister Justin Castellan—representing Singh Homes—told the jury Mr Singh had ‘wreaked havoc online’ and that his statements were not grounded in fact.
‘This is an important case because the jury has sent a clear message to all social media users that…reviews based on lies cannot be used as a weapon to damage a hardworking business,’ Mr Castellan said.
He warned that even short posts could have serious consequences if they were misleading or false.
Lawyer Adam Zuchowski, acting for Singh Homes, successfully pushed for the posts to be removed—an action Mr Singh complied with.
He noted this may be Australia’s first jury decision in a defamation case involving a malicious social media campaign against a business.
‘It shows you have to be careful about putting a review online,’ Mr Zuchowski said.
He pointed out that while it’s generally acceptable to post a truthful review—such as a bad restaurant experience—there is a line when accusations become false and damaging.
Mr Zuchowski also revealed that several prospective clients walked away from Singh Homes after reading Mr Singh’s claims, contributing to over $1 million in potential losses and legal costs.
He said the false claim that liquidators were involved was especially harmful given the broader context of instability in the construction industry.
The case is due to return to court on 18 and 19 August, when the final ruling on damages will be made.
Mr Singh’s lawyer, Eimad Daniel of Daniel Legal, said he would reserve comment until after the hearing but acknowledged the case’s significance in shaping how users post about services and businesses online.
Defamation law expert Mark Stanarevic, principal at Matrix Legal, noted the broader warning this case sends.
‘People need to realise that hitting “post” on a rant or rumour can come with serious legal consequences,’ he said.
‘Online defamation is real, and the courts are taking it seriously.’
Online backlash can escalate quickly—especially when a moment is misunderstood or taken out of context.
In another case involving reputational damage, one healthcare worker faced devastating consequences after a video of her went viral.
It’s a sobering reminder of how fast things can spiral when public perception turns.
Read more: 'It was taken out of context': Nurse's life turns for the worse after her video made rounds online
Should a single post really be worth a million dollars?
