Agent fined $50k for Facebook posts

Listen to this article:

FACEBOOK is not a privileged platform for publishing damaging statements, High Court Judge Justice Deepthi Amaratunga ruled as he ordered real estate agent, Reginald Jokhan to pay $50,000 in damages for defamatory posts against fellow agent Anand Krishna Goundar.

In a judgment delivered on November 27, Justice Amaratunga found that a series of Facebook posts on the Land for Sale Fiji page — and an email circulated by Mr Jokhan — falsely portrayed Mr Goundar as dishonest, greedy, and criminal, and were made with malice.

“Defendant’s (Mr Jokhan) posts on public platforms such as Facebook are not a privileged occasion…,” the judge said.

“Public policy is very much against such publications.”

The court held that the statements were not legitimate comment, but “serious allegations presented as fact.” Claims that Mr Goundar inflated prices and “fooled” the public were dismissed as baseless, with the judge noting that the prices were set under a valid Exclusive Agency Agreement.

“This cannot be considered as a comment but stating a fact or allegation directly at the Plaintiff.”

Mr Jokhan argued that his statements were fair comment, justified, and protected by qualified privilege. The court rejected all three defences.

“When it is proved that the defendant’s allegations are wrong, there is no issue of privilege.

“There cannot be moral duty to state falsehood or unverified facts.”

The judgment emphasised the heightened harm caused by online platforms, referencing Fiji’s Online Safety Act.

“Facebook has potential to become viral and hence the harm is exponential. It is important not to defame others only because it is easy or fun to do so.”

The court accepted evidence that the posts caused significant reputational damage, financial loss, emotional distress, and even marital strain for Mr Goundar.

Justice Amaratunga awarded $40,000 in general damages and $10,000 in aggravated/exemplary damages, noting that exemplary damages were necessary to deter reckless online behaviour.

“Exemplary damages are warranted for deterrence on online communications which have global reach and instant publication that is continuous, unlike one-off publication in a print medium.”

Mr Jokhan was also ordered to pay $3500 in costs within 21 days.