Haweina Trading Co Ltd v Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd and another [2026] SGDC 230

The Claimant is a foreign company and runs a business providing eyelash beautification services and related products and training courses. The 1st Defendant is a Singapore company and, nomen est omen, it too provides eyelash products and services. The 2nd Defendant is its sole shareholder and director. The disputants had no dealings with each other until April 2025. The Defendants had a misunderstanding with a supplier whom they had in common with the Claimant. They put it down to the Claimant’s doing. Disgruntled, they dashed off a series of posts about the Claimant, its representatives or employees on their social media accounts.

Those louche publications attracted a libel action from the Claimant. Because the Defendants did not file and serve a notice of intention to contest or not contest, a default judgment was entered against them. The issues of defamatory meaning and identification became incontestable. The matter proceeded to this assessment of damages hearing, at which the Claimant sought general damages only.

Unlike a natural person, a corporate claimant is not presumed to have a reputation. It must prove that it has a reputation that is capable of being injured by the libel. Therefore, when assessing damages, there is a threshold question of whether the claimant had a trading or business reputation within Singapore, at the time of the libellous publications. This is a question of fact to be established by evidence: Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co, Ltd and others v Goh Teck Beng and another [2016] 4 SLR 977 at [50], [51], [58] and [59]. If the answer is negative, it is not entitled to damages.

The Claimant pleaded that it “operates outside of Singapore, from Taiwan” but has clients and customers “across Asia, including […] Singapore” and a reputation “within the beauty community, particularly in Taiwan and Singapore”. I examine whether the evidence fulfils this pleading.

Ms Yeh Yi-Wei is a director of the Claimant and appeared as its sole witness. She says that the Claimant has clients in Singapore, based on the number of “followers” that its social media accounts have accumulated. Her affidavit of evidence-in-chief affirmed on 30 January 2026 stated:

In my view, her reasoning lacks discrimination and her numbers are short of explanatory power--. There is no certain or necessary relationship between the number of followers that a company has gathered on its social media accounts and the existence of its business or trading reputation in a particular jurisdiction. Further, there is no evidence in the affidavit to show whether any, and if so, how many, of the Claimant’s social media followers were from Singapore, and when they were cultivated.

Ms Yeh’s affidavit also alleged, “On or around I was also informed by a potential client of mine from Singapore that she had seen the [defamatory statements] […] Evidence of this is exhibited […] herein.” The allegation is missing a date. The exhibited evidence consists of screenshots of some text messages exchanged between Ms Yeh and the said “potential client”, which are meant to prove the allegation. I cannot determine from the screenshots when those text messages were exchanged — I suppose the Claimant’s solicitors faced the same problem when drafting the affidavit, inserted a placeholder in the text, and forgot about it. The bigger problem is that the Claimant is unable to demonstrate from the contents of the text messages that the said “potential client” hailed from Singapore and not elsewhere (for example, Hong Kong or Malaysia).

That is the entire gamut of the Claimant’s affidavit evidence to prove that it had a business or trading reputation within Singapore as of April 2025, and it is insufficient.

When cross-examined by the 2nd Defendant, Ms Yeh said the Claimant:

When given another opportunity to show the Court any documents regarding the extent of the Claimant’s reputation in Singapore, Ms Yeh stated:

Her answer made clear that the Claimant is indeed relying purely on the strength of its online social media presence to prove its business or trading reputation in Singapore, which I cannot accept (see [5] above). The oral evidence given on behalf of the Claimant does not advance its case.