A recent High Court judgment has sent a clear message to social media users in Trinidad and Tobago: reposting defamatory material online can make you just as liable as the person who created it.
Defamation occurs when someone communicates or publishes a false statement about another person, which harms their reputation or exposes them to hatred or ridicule. This may be through spoken words, written publications including social media. In determining whether a statement is defamatory, courts consider not only the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in question, but also any implication or inference that the average person would draw from such words.
The case, Chin-Aleong v Leid and Bhagwansingh, involved serious allegations made against a well-known tutor who runs a private lessons business. The court found that two medical professionals used their Instagram and Facebook accounts to post and share claims accusing the Claimant of paedophilia, sexual harassment, and other inappropriate conduct with students.
While one of the defendants originally posted the allegations, the second defendant, reshared them to his large social media following of over 5,000 people. He argued that he believed the claims were true and that he was acting in the public interest.
Although a statement may be harmful, the person making it may rely on the defenses of truth, fair comment, or privilege to avoid or minimize liability. If the statement is verifiably true, it is generally not deemed defamatory, even if it damages someone’s reputation. Statements made in the public interest, such as those revealing wrongdoing or corruption, may be protected by the defenses of qualified privilege or fair comment, despite being harmful to an individual’s reputation. The intent behind the statement is critical. A statement made with malice, meaning the intention to cause reputational harm, is more likely to be considered defamatory.
However, the court rejected these defences. It held that reposting the content amounted to adopting the allegations as his own. In other words, by sharing the posts, the Second Defendant made himself equally responsible for their impact.
The court also found that the claims were entirely unproven. The single witness relied on by the defence did not provide credible evidence of any misconduct. The court also rejected the arguments of “fair comment” and “public interest”, ruling that these defences failed because the defendant did not investigate or verify the claims before publishing them.
In the judgement, which was delivered on May 20, 2025, the court described the statements as among “the worst things that could be said about a person” and noted the serious damage to the Claimant’s reputation and business.
Importantly, the court acknowledged that issues involving the safety of children are of great public interest, but made it clear that public interest is not a free pass to spread harmful and unverified allegations.
The court ordered the first defendant to pay sum of $330,000 while the second defendant was ordered to pay $410,000 in damages to the claimant. Additionally, both defendants were ordered to publish unequivocal apologies and retractions in three newspapers and on their social media platforms. They are also permanently restrained from repeating the defamatory content.
This case highlights an important lesson for social media users: reposting defamatory content can carry the same legal consequences as creating it. Before you share that viral post, especially one that makes damaging claims about someone, ask yourself: Is it true? Is it fair? Is it legal?
