Facebook pages and groups built to name and shame builders now run in most parts of the country. A Victorian appeal ruling shows what happens when posts about a builder get the facts wrong, and who carries the risk.
Most builders know the feeling. A client relationship goes bad, and a few days later a mate sends a screenshot from a Facebook group.
Your business name is in the post. The comments underneath have already run well past anything that happened on site.
Groups and pages set up to complain about builders are now part of the landscape. A recent Victorian Court of Appeal decision, Singh v Singh Homes Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 191, shows how quickly posts like these can turn into a court case, and how much they can cost the person behind them.
Complaint groups about builders now run in most states
Some are broad. Shonky Builders WA is a public Facebook page focused on builder complaints and defective work in Western Australia. In the Singh Homes case, the first post appeared on a Facebook page called Dodgy Builders Melbourne.
Others form around a single company. In Western Sydney, a Facebook group set up to share experiences with one granny flat builder had grown past 250 members by the time it was reported on in local media.
The instinct is not new. Forum threads calling for builders to be named and shamed go back well over a decade. What has changed is reach. A post in a group can be shared, screenshotted and passed through private messaging within hours.
There is no public count of these groups, and no reliable data on how fast they are growing. But for many builders, they have become one more place where a reputation is built or lost.
Singh Homes shows what a few posts can cost
A Melbourne homeowner engaged Singh Homes to build in Truganina. After disputes over payments, site attendance and workmanship, the builder terminated the contract on 12 February 2024.
Two days later, the homeowner posted on the Dodgy Builders Melbourne page. On 17 February a Punjabi language TikTok video followed, naming the company and its two directors. It reached about 220,000 views and was shared through WhatsApp.
Comments under the video went further than the homeowner had, including suggestions that the company was going into liquidation. The video stayed up until around July 2025, despite repeated requests to remove it.
A County Court jury rejected his truth defences on several allegations. The company was awarded $673,000 for injurious falsehood and misleading or deceptive conduct, largely for lost business. After the directors won their appeal, each was awarded $105,000 in October 2026. Damages now total $883,000, with legal costs and interest expected to push the bill past $1 million.
Defamation or injurious falsehood: what is the difference?
Defamation protects reputation. Individuals can sue, but most companies cannot, because section 9 of the Defamation Act excludes corporations with 10 or more employees or that are associated with another corporation. Outside Western Australia, the plaintiff must also prove serious harm.
Injurious falsehood protects a business from false statements that cause it financial loss. A company of any size can sue, but it must prove the statement was false, that it was made with malice, and that it caused actual loss. That is why lost customers sit at the centre of these claims.
The poster can own the comments, and the admin can own the group
Two points from the case matter for anyone named in a group.
First, the jury found the homeowner was the publisher of the comments other people left under his video. The Court of Appeal held the harm those comments caused had to be counted. It was the liquidation rumour, raised in the comments, that helped prove serious harm to the directors.
Second, the people running groups and pages have their own exposure. In 2021 the High Court held in Fairfax Media Publications v Voller that media companies running public Facebook pages were publishers of the comments readers left on them, because they had facilitated and encouraged those comments.
The Stage 2 defamation reforms have since given digital intermediaries, a term that can include people who administer online pages and forums, an innocent dissemination defence. It depends on having an accessible complaints mechanism and taking reasonable steps to remove or block material within seven days of a valid complaint. Those reforms are now in force in NSW, the ACT, Victoria, the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Queensland, where they commenced on 26 December 2025. South Australia adopted them only in part.
A post can be one person’s words. The thread underneath it can still be their legal problem.
Timing shapes what is possible once a post appears
Builders who keep an eye on these groups are usually doing it for one reason: the clock starts when something is published.
Defamation claims generally have to be started within one year of publication, although a court can extend that in limited circumstances. In Singh Homes, the homeowner’s delay in removing the video after repeated requests was one of the factors behind the aggravated damages awarded to the directors.
The evidence that carried the builder’s case was also time sensitive. It came down to what was posted, how far it travelled, and which prospective customers walked away. Posts can be edited or deleted. A record made when the post first appears can look very different from one pieced together months later.
The options when a post gets the facts wrong
There are several routes, and they do different jobs.
The platform. Facebook’s reporting tools are built around its own community standards, and Meta also accepts reports of content that may breach local law. A report goes to the platform, not the person who posted.
The admin. A group or page administrator can remove a post or a comment. Under the Stage 2 framework, a written complaint through an intermediary’s complaints mechanism, identifying the material and why it is defamatory, starts the seven day window the intermediary has to act if it wants to rely on that defence.
The poster. Before any defamation proceedings can begin, everywhere except Western Australia, the person complaining must serve a concerns notice. It is a written notice setting out the material, the defamatory meaning and the harm, and it gives the publisher a chance to make amends before anyone goes to court.
Other claims. Most building companies cannot sue for defamation at all, because the Defamation Act only allows a company to sue if it has fewer than 10 employees and is not part of a corporate group, or is a not for profit. That is why Singh Homes ran its case on injurious falsehood and consumer law, while its directors sued personally.
Honest criticism stays lawful
None of this turns a bad review into a legal risk on its own. Truth is a defence. So is honest opinion. A client who says the job ran late and communication was poor is generally on safe ground if that is what happened.
The Court of Appeal was careful on one point in particular. It noted there is no decided case holding an ordinary consumer liable under the Australian Consumer Law for a social media review, and said this appeal was not the place to decide it. The company’s damages also rested on separate injurious falsehood findings that were not appealed.
In Western Australia, the picture is different again. WA has not adopted either round of reforms, so there is no serious harm element and no mandatory concerns notice there.
The line is falsehood, not frustration
Complaint groups are not going away, and some clients will always take a dispute online. The law does not stop them saying a job went badly.
What Singh Homes shows is where that protection ends. Allegations a jury found defamatory, including comments suggesting the builder was going into liquidation, spread through a community and stayed up after requests to remove them. The homeowner has been ordered to pay $883,000 in damages, before legal costs. The person who started the thread answered for what others added to it.
For builders, the practical lesson in the case sits in the evidence. The company could show what was said, how far it went, and what it cost. That record only exists if someone is watching when the post goes up.
Az and the team talk through disputes, contracts and the legal side of running a building business on The Good Builder Podcast. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.
Frequently asked questions
Yes. A post or comment in a Facebook group is a publication under Australian defamation law. An individual builder or company director can sue over a false post that causes serious harm to their reputation. Most building companies cannot sue for defamation in their own name, but can bring claims such as injurious falsehood.
They can be. The High Court held in Voller that media companies running public Facebook pages were publishers of the comments readers left on them. The Stage 2 reforms now give digital intermediaries, which can include people who administer pages and forums, a defence if they have an accessible complaints mechanism and take reasonable steps within seven days of a valid complaint.
Yes. In Singh v Singh Homes Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 191, the jury found the homeowner was the publisher of comments left under his TikTok video, and the Court of Appeal held the harm those comments caused had to be counted in deciding serious harm.
Defamation proceedings generally have to start within one year of publication, with limited scope for a court to extend that. Outside Western Australia, a concerns notice must be served before proceedings begin.
Related articles
- When Bad Reviews Cross the Line: How Builders Can Protect Their Reputation and Their Business
- Defamation in the Digital Age: How Australian Law Is Catching Up With Online Reputation Damage
- Building Disputes in Australia
Last updated 9 November 2026
General Information Only: This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal, financial or professional advice. It does not take into account your particular circumstances. You should seek independent professional advice before acting on any information in this article. The Good Builder accepts no liability for any loss arising from reliance on this content.
0 Comments