SINGAPORE — A former franchisee of the Original Orchard Emerald Beef Noodles business has won a defamation suit against the franchise owner’s son, who had accused him of stealing the family’s recipe and “unscrupulously” continuing to sell their brand of noodles.

Mr Jonathan Cheok will have to pay S$10,000 in damages to food and beverage firm Hunger Busters following District Judge Tan May Tee’s decision, which was released on May 29.

The beef between both parties arose after Hunger Busters, represented by its sole director Jared Lim, entered into a franchise agreement with the business in late 2017.

The business was founded in 1997 by Mr George Cheok. 

The family patriarch had developed his own recipe for Hainanese beef noodles and sold them at the food court of the now-defunct Orchard Emerald shopping mall.

Eventually in 2010, the stall moved to a coffee shop at Block 46 Holland Drive.

In 2017, when the older Cheok was taking a break from the business, he agreed to franchise it for the first time.

Mr Lim paid S$25,000 in franchise fees and set up shop at Tai Thong Crescent in Upper Serangoon with the Cheoks’ help. Mr George Cheok gave him a copy of his beef noodle recipe, cooking procedures and supplier details.

However, the franchise did poorly and led to a “very unpleasant” meeting between both parties, District Judge Tan noted in her grounds of decision.

Mr Lim had appealed to vary the terms of their memorandum of understanding. 

The Cheoks agreed to waive the royalties for the first three months of the franchise stall’s operations. 

But when business did not improve by December 2017, Mr Lim asked for permission to add more items to the menu to attract more customers. The Cheoks did not agree as they wanted the franchise to exclusively sell beef noodles.

Mr Lim then terminated the agreement in January 2018, before starting another stall called The Beef Station in place of the franchise. 

He made some changes to its facade, removed the Original Orchard Emerald Beef Noodles’ logo and name and added more items to his menu.

Believing that Mr Lim was using his recipe with some tweaks, Mr George Cheok posted on Facebook that he would be resuming business at the Holland Drive location. He also said that the noodles sold at Mr Lim’s stall were not authentic.

According to an 8 Days article, the Holland Drive stall has since closed down.

In February 2018, Mr George Cheok’s oldest son Jonathan, who also runs the local YouTube channel cheokboardstudios, wrote three identical posts on his Facebook and Instagram accounts.

The posts said: “Do not settle for the fake, pretentious, BEEF NOODLE imitations and copies out there! … As the vendors have since rebranded and are unscrupulously continuing to sell my dad’s beef noodle recipe, we are opening our brand NEW outlet in the Holland V area.”

He took down two of the posts on his cheokboardstudios accounts after 15 days when Mr Lim initiated legal action. The one on his personal Facebook account remains up and visible to friends.

In her judgment, District Judge Tan found that the posts fulfilled all three conditions for defamation: Its statement bore a defamatory meaning, ordinary people would understand that it referred to Hunger Busters and it was published to third parties.

The judge said that even on casual reading, the posts “convey a sense of wrongdoing or at the very least, unethical behaviour”.

“The imputation of unethical or dishonest conduct in the words used would undoubtedly have an adverse effect on the reputation of the person that the accusation is levelled against,” she added.

Even though the posts did not explicitly refer to Hunger Busters or The Beef Station, both Mr Jonathan Cheok and his father had tagged each other in their respective posts. Facebook users could easily find out more about the former franchisee that way, the judge ruled.

One of Mr Jonathan Cheok’s friends had even commented on his Instagram post with the hashtag “#Donteatbeefnoodlefrombeefstation”.

Nevertheless, District Judge Tan noted that The Beef Station had been open for less than a month when the defamatory posts were published and had not suffered any loss in business following the publication of the posts.

She then directed both parties to file written submissions on the issue of costs for the lawsuit.