MAKERICKS3D LLP v Terence Lee Meng Kai

MAKERICKS3D LLP v Terence Lee Meng Kai

Posts were not defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning nor by innuendo and did not, on objective assessment, refer to the Claimant; on malicious falsehood the Claimant failed to prove the relevant statement was false (burden on Claimant) and adduced no expert evidence to rebut Defendant’s circumstantial account that damage occurred during overseas rides; malice and causation likewise not established. Accordingly both causes of action fail and the action is dismissed.

Citation
[2025] SGDC 271
Parties
Claimant: Makericks3D LLP; Defendant: Terence Lee Meng Kai
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
13 October 2025
Case Number
DC/OC 374/2023
Procedural Posture
District Court Originating Claim (tort: Defamation; Malicious Falsehood) / Trial Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Action dismissed. Claims in defamation and malicious falsehood are not made out.
Legal Topics
Defamatory Meaning, Reference, Publication, Malice, Causation, Damages
Source Language
English
Tort Defamation Malicious Falsehood Civil Procedure Defamatory Meaning Reference Publication Malice +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makericks3D LLP

Claimant

Terence Lee Meng Kai

Defendant

Procedural Posture

District Court Originating Claim (tort: Defamation; Malicious Falsehood) / Trial Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Posts were defamatory (natural and ordinary meaning and innuendo) and referred to the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Posts amounted to malicious falsehood (falsehood, malice, and actual damage)
  3. 3 Appropriate remedies if either cause of action succeeded

Ratio Decidendi

Posts were not defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning nor by innuendo and did not, on objective assessment, refer to the Claimant; on malicious falsehood the Claimant failed to prove the relevant statement was false (burden on Claimant) and adduced no expert evidence to rebut Defendant’s circumstantial account that damage occurred during overseas rides; malice and causation likewise not established. Accordingly both causes of action fail and the action is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed. Claims in defamation and malicious falsehood are not made out.

Orders

  • Action dismissed.
  • Parties to file written submissions on costs, limited to ten pages each, within two weeks from the date of this judgment.