A HIGH COURT judge has ordered a businessman and educator to be paid $740,000 by two medical professionals in a ruling on a defamation lawsuit that highlights the dangers of posting unverified claims online.

“These are soul-damning allegations that touch the essence of the ethics and morality of the human being. They are some of the worst things that could be said about man or woman,” Justice Ricky Rahim said of the allegations as he awarded damages to teacher and businessman Colin Chin-Aleong.

Chin-Aleong, who has operated a well-known tutoring business for over three decades in Westmoorings, filed the lawsuit following a series of online posts made between October 4 and 7, 2021.

The posts, made by Dr Tarini Bhagwansingh and initiated by Dr Gia Leid, included statements and images that falsely portrayed Chin-Aleong in an extremely negative light, significantly damaging his professional reputation and personal standing in the community.

Rahim ruled that the publications were clearly defamatory and that the defendants failed to substantiate their claims or establish valid legal defences such as justification, fair comment, or public interest privilege. According to the judgment, Bhagwansingh reposted and endorsed the content on his Instagram and Facebook accounts, tagging a popular advocacy group.

"The brazen and uncaring manner in which the second defendant carried out his reposting is wholly unacceptable and entirely egregious," Rahim said in his ruling.

“In one fell swoop, the second defendant recklessly and without regard for the truth and the effects of such destructive allegations decimated the name and reputation of the claimant.”

Leid did not participate in the trial before Rahim, but a judgment in default had been entered against her since March 2022 and deferred until the judge gave his ruling against Bhagwansingh.

He found that Bhagwansingh made no effort to verify the content he was reposting, nor did he seek to obtain a response from Chin-Aleong before publication.

“The court does not accept, as he has argued, that he merely published an allegation and called for an investigation.

“In fact, the evidence shows and the court finds that he adopted the posts wholesale, as it were, so that the contents became his in substance. By repeating them, he was saying, as admitted by him, that these imputations about Colin were true.”

Rahim added, “The nature and content of the posts amount to a clear frontal attack on the claimant in that the entire post is about him and his conduct. Of course, had Tarini done his own research and satisfied himself of the bona fides of the words set out in the posts, the inclusion of the material may have been justifiable. The charge in this case could rarely be more serious.

“It cannot be in the public interest to make such debilitating statements of the character of a person without grounding them in fact. Freedom of speech is not absolute and is always constrained by the rights of others and the law.”

As part of the judgment, Bhagwansingh was ordered t