By Boo Kok Chuon

In the recent news involving Melvin Lim and Grayce Tan of Property Lim Brothers, much attention has understandably been drawn to the corporate fallout, the resignations, and the firm’s subsequent public statements. Yet, as with many controversies involving public personalities, what appears most consequential at first glance is not always where the legal risks truly lie. Often, the quieter details, for instance the words chosen, the manner of publication, and the certainty with which allegations are voiced, carry implications that are not immediately apparent to the casual observer.

As the matter continues to be discussed widely, it may be useful to step back and examine one narrow slice of the episode through a legal lens, not to determine what “really happened”, but to consider how the law of defamation generally approaches such situations.

---

Beyond the Corporate Fallout: The Hidden Legal Risks

Akin to many past leaks of videos involving public personalities, the controversy did not unfold solely through formal statements or press releases. Instead, it appears to have gained momentum through informal recordings, ambient audio, and commentary captured contemporaneously on video. In such situations, the legal difficulty often lies not in the existence of the footage itself, but in the interpretation layered onto it.

Videos of this nature are typically ambiguous. They show movement, timing, proximity, and context, but rarely establish conclusively what occurred behind closed doors. The trouble tends to begin when those who record or circulate such videos go further — when they narrate, label, or “explain” the footage in a way that transforms uncertainty into alleged fact.

Among the various potential causes of action that might arise from the leaking or circulation of such material — including privacy or misuse of personal data — one area that frequently surfaces is defamation. This is especially so where commentary accompanying the video purports to confirm conduct that could be reputationally damaging.

---

A brief primer on defamation

At its most basic level, defamation law is concerned with whether a statement published to a third party carries a meaning that tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society¹. Importantly, the law does not require the statement to be malicious, nor does it require the court to determine its truth at the outset.

The classic elements are well established: the statement must be defamatory in nature, it must refer to the claimant, and it must be published². Once these elements are made out on a prima facie basis, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to raise a sustainable defence, such as justification or fair comment.

Courts have repeatedly emphasised that, at this stage, the inquiry is not whether the allegation is ultimately proven, but whether the words used are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning³ and refers to the plaintiff⁴. Where language is framed with certainty and specificity, the likelihood of meeting this threshold may increase.

---

Fact vs. Conjecture: The Evidential Weight of “Certainty”

Against this backdrop, it may be analytically useful to focus narrowly on the words recorded within the videos themselves, rather than the broader online discourse that followed.

In particular, certain remarks purportedly captured on the recordings (and widely cited in online outlets such as Stomp) warrant closer scrutiny. The phrase ‘confirm is sex’, if taken at face value, appear to assert a factual conclusion rather than express mere suspicion or opinion. They go beyond describing what is observable on the video, and instead purport to establish what allegedly occurred out of sight.

From a defamation perspective, one might ask whether such remarks could potentially be seen as imputing specific moral or sexual misconduct. If so, there is at least a possibility that a court could find these words capable of carrying a defamatory meaning, subject of course to the broader context in which they were uttered and recorded.

By contrast, had the commentary been framed more tentatively, for instance, couched in terms of uncertainty or speculation, the risk profile might have been materially different. Defamation law has long recognised that there is a meaningful distinction between asserting a fact and expressing a conjecture⁶, even if that distinction may appear subtle in everyday speech.

---

Conclusion

None of this is to suggest that liability necessarily follows, nor that every careless remark gives rise to a viable claim. Much would still depend on context, audience, available defences, and the overall impression conveyed to an ordinary reasonable viewer.

However, what this episode usefully illustrates is how defamation law often turns on precision rather than drama. In controversies involving leaked material, the legal risk may arise less from what the video shows, and more from what the speaker claims it proves.

In that sense, defamation law serves as a quiet reminder that certainty is expensive. Where the facts are unclear, asserting that something is “confirmed” may carry consequences that speculation does not.

Disclaimer

This article is written for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, nor is it intended to comment on the merits of any ongoing or potential dispute involving any individual or organisation mentioned in the public domain.

The discussion herein is analytical and illustrative, focusing on general principles of defamation law and how courts may approach certain categories of statements. References to recent events are used solely as contextual background, without making any findings of fact or assertions as to what did or did not occur.

Any views expressed are probabilistic and exploratory in nature, and readers should not treat them as conclusions, allegations, or determinations of liability. Legal outcomes depend heavily on specific facts, context, and evidence, which are often unavailable or incomplete in public reporting.

Readers who require advice on their own circumstances should seek independent legal counsel.

Footnotes

1. Gary Chan Kok Yew, The Law of Torts in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2nd Ed, 2016) [12.011] ↩︎
2. Gary Chan Kok Yew, The Law of Torts in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2nd Ed, 2016) [12.010] ↩︎
3. ABZ v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd [2009] 4 SLR 648 at [31] ↩︎
4. Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd. [1944] AC 116 ↩︎
5. https://www.stomp.sg/trending-now/propertylimbrothers-melvin-lim-removed-company-website-amid-allegations-affair-staff ↩︎
6. Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd. [1944] AC 116 ↩︎