TikTok Video Leaves Homeowner Facing $1 Million-Plus Damages Bill

On October 28, the County Court ordered Gurvinderpal Singh to pay $883,000 in damages over a viral TikTok complaint about Singh Homes. Legal costs and interest are expected to push his total liability above $1 million.

The order requires Singh to pay $673,000 to Singh Homes and $105,000 each to directors Parvinder Singh Sarwara and Daman Preet Singh Anand. Richard Hutchings, a building and construction partner at Cornwalls law firm, called the case “a win for small business.”

“People build up reputations, livelihoods, businesses, and they can be undermined quite easily by people engaging in online criticism and dressed up as a review,” Hutchings said. SmartCompany sought comment from Singh Homes and from legal representatives for Gurvinderpal Singh; neither responded before publication.

What started the dispute?

The County Court case record shows that Singh hired Singh Homes to construct a house in Truganina, in Melbourne’s west. The relationship deteriorated over disagreements about construction work and payments, and the building contract was terminated in February 2024.

According to the case record, Singh then posted a Punjabi-language TikTok voicing complaints against the company and its directors. The video attracted around 220,000 views, mainly among Punjabi-speaking members of Melbourne’s Indian community, and circulated through WhatsApp.

What did the jury find?\n

A jury found the video conveyed defamatory allegations that Sarwara and Anand were “dodgy builders,” neglected customers and made unreasonable demands for payment. It also found that comments below the video conveyed allegations that Singh Homes was going into liquidation and its directors were unqualified and had “ripped off customers.”

The jury rejected truth defenses to several allegations. Singh Homes told the court that approximately 12 prospective customers abandoned plans to build with the company after the allegations.

How did the case reach the Court of Appeal?

County Court Judge Julie Clayton initially found the directors had not established the serious reputational harm necessary to pursue their defamation claims. The dispute then went to the Victorian Court of Appeal, which overturned Clayton’s ruling in August 2026 and found that the evidence collectively established serious harm to the directors’ reputations.

In her October 28 judgment, Clayton awarded each director $100,000 in general damages and $5,000 in aggravated damages. Together with the $673,000 awarded to Singh Homes, that produced $883,000 in damages before legal costs and interest.

Why were aggravated damages awarded?

Clayton considered Singh’s decision to leave the video online until around July 2025 despite repeated requests for its removal. Anand said he received around 40 to 45 calls about the video, including calls from overseas.

Sarwara testified that he felt he was being shunned by community members after the video and was questioned regularly about the company’s financial position. Singh told the court his complaints about the builder were genuine, but the rulings require him to pay the $883,000 award.

What does the ruling mean for online criticism?

Hutchings said the case highlights the financial risks facing people who make serious allegations against businesses on social media. He said: “It doesn’t really change the law. It’s just a good example of how people going too far and saying things that don’t have a proper basis for, can be liable, and the damages can be very significant.”

Hutchings said consumers can still raise legitimate complaints and offer fair criticism. He warned that damaging allegations can travel farther than intended through community groups and social media platforms. “It just shows that with the power of free speech comes the responsibility to exercise that in a reasonable, and fair way,” Hutchings said.

He also warned that people who share or republish potentially defamatory content made by others can face separate legal liability. “[People] should not assume that online is a safe space, where they can say whatever they want,” he said.

What remains unsettled for ordinary bad reviews?

The Court of Appeal did not decide whether ordinary customers’ negative reviews could breach Australian Consumer Law. The ruling therefore sets no precedent for businesses to sue simply because someone leaves a bad review. For businesses and reviewers, the case leaves a practical warning: allegations without a proper factual basis can produce seven-figure liability, while ordinary negative reviews remain outside the ruling.