News

Interior Design Firm Sued Couple for Defamation; Eventually Won the Case

2020-09-25 , 11:34 am

Last Updated on 2021-02-02 , 11:44 am

Update on 2 Feb 2021: We have been notified that the interior design firm’s appeal is successful, and that the couple is now liable for defamation in a District Court’s decision on 14 December 2020. Simply put, whatever the couple said isn’t true. The couple, therefore, has to pay costs to the firm, and they’ve not appealed.

In this digital age where the Internet is so accessible, what’s the first thing you do when you suffer from any injustice and are just boiling over with anger?

Yep, that’s right – write an angry review on social media.

Usually, brands would either just leave you alone after that or approach you to apologise and work things out with you, but this interior design company… took things a little further.

Sued Couple For Defamation

Fineline, a group of interior design companies, had sued Mr Koh Shou Wen and Ms Erin Chua against charges of defamation made against them via online reviews.

The couple had originally engaged Fineline Unique, a company under the brand, in 2017 to work on their new condominium apartment in Sembawang.

However, a few months later, the couple was unhappy with the interior design company for the delays in completing the installation of electrical wires and cabinets, as well as defects when they did so.

Naturally, the couple left a long, angry review about the company on Google Reviews and Hometrust, an interior design e-marketplace, to let others know of their bad experience.

Fineline, unable to shoulder those accusations, then sued the couple for wrongfully accusing them of being “unreliable, negligent, unprofessional and wholly incompetent”.

They also claimed to have suffered losses through this.

Where Did It All Go Wrong?

With the help of Qanvast, a platform that connects homeowners to interior designers, Mr Koh and Ms Chua first got to know of Fineline and engaged their services thereafter in August 2017.

They had requested for the company to make an install a TV display console, a toy and shoe cabinet, a feature wall, and a wardrobe, in addition to setting up electrical equipment in the house.

Mr Aloysius Pek was then assigned to be the couple’s interior designer by Fineline, but shortly after they paid their deposit, he started to show signs of incompetency and had “failed to live up to his promises”, as the couple wrote.

They were actually quite patient in dealing with him, for they only made a complaint about him in February 2018 when the three-dimensional designs provided by Fineline did not match up to what was being liaised.

Fineline then switched Mr Pek out for Mr Samuel Chong, another interior designer who had less experience than Mr Pek. Shortly after, Mr Pek left the company.

Another Complaint Sent

Three months later in May 2018, the couple sent in yet another complaint to Qanvast this time, stating that Fineline had failed to oversee the renovation.

The couple said that on some occasions, the both of them had been left alone to oversee the works done by the firm’s subcontractors and carpenters, for the interior designers did not show up as planned. There were also several chips and scratches on the flooring, for which Mr Chong did not take responsibility for.

As this was the last straw, Mr Koh and Ms Chua then proceeded to leave a review on Google Reviews and Hometrust, stating that engaging Fineline was the “worst ID (interior designers) experience”, and warned others against getting fooled by their honeyed sweet-worded sales tactics”.

They also wrote in another review that they now realised “a lot of things they also cannot make it” seven months down the road.

No Proper Documentation

Evidence was provided in court by the couple for the delays and defects in renovation work.

Mr Roger Sim, a senior project designer at Fineline, then acknowledged that the toy cabinet was indeed too narrow and attributed it to a company error, saying that the only remedy available was to redo it completely.

The couple also stated that it took months for the glass components in the cabinets to be installed, for they had to be redone several times. Mr Sim and Mr Chong both were not there to oversee the workers.

Mr Sim’s ignorance led to there being a 10cm gap behind the wardrobe, which the judge acknowledged as further evidence of Fineline’s “incompetence and negligence”.

Fineline also provided inconsistent documentation throughout the process.

The couple’s contract was originally contracted with Fineline Unique, but the renovation permit was under Fineline Design and the handover under Fineline Spacious.

Despite these all being companies under the same group along with Fineline Conceptz and Fineline Inspiration, District Judge Lim noted that this “haphazard documentation” would have made it unclear to the couple which company was working on the project.

“Although it is open to (Fineline Unique) to tap the support that may be provided by other companies in the Fineline Group, it cannot assign work to these companies and yet shield them from complaints on shortcomings, when they themselves fail to provide clarity on which company is doing the work,” the judge added.

A counterclaim against Fineline had also been filed with Ms Chua claiming that she had suffered medical injuries from inhaling dust and other pollutants while she oversaw the works.

This was rejected by the judge for a lack of medical evidence.

Lawsuit Rejected

After Fineline sued the couple, the defamation lawsuit was thrown out by District Judge Lim Wee Ming back in June.

Explaining his rationale on 11 Sep, the judge stated that he accepted the couple’s defence of there being a delay and defects in renovation works, failure to oversee these works, and inconsistent documentation.

Mr Koh and Ms Chua then reposted their reviews after the end of an interim injunction, which temporarily forbade them from keeping their reviews up online while the case was still being investigated.

Fineline has appealed against the judge’s decision.