Haweina Trading Co Ltd v Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd & Anor
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 3–9 August 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Evans Ng |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Forward Legal LLC, Fong Wei Li, Leng Ji En Paul, Tiffanie Lim Jing Wen |
Source: [2026] SGDC 257, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
Haweina Trading Co Ltd v Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd and another [2026] SGDC 257 is a costs decision of the District Court delivered by Deputy Registrar Evans Ng, dated 7 August 2026. The Claimant had obtained an interlocutory judgment in a defamation action but was not awarded damages. The issue was how costs should be allocated and quantified, including the costs of the self-represented 2nd Defendant. The Deputy Registrar noted that the Claimant's demands fell from $70,000 to $50,000 and then $35,000, and that the Claimant had not sent the 2nd Defendant the correct bundle of documents or its costs submissions. Applying O 21, r 7 of the Rules of Court 2021, he assessed 28 hours at $50 an hour, plus $90 in disbursements, and ordered the Claimant to pay the 2nd Defendant costs fixed at $1,490 (all-in). No order as to costs was made for the 1st Defendant.
[2026] SGDC 257 explained
Haweina Trading Co Ltd v Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd & Anor ([2026] SGDC 257) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 7 August 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGDC 257 about?
Haweina Trading Co Ltd v Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd & Anor ([2026] SGDC 257) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Costs”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGDC 257 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGDC 230. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How influential is [2026] SGDC 257?
Within this corpus, [2026] SGDC 257 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
The District Court, through a Deputy Registrar, decided costs in a defamation action in which Haweina Trading Co Ltd had obtained interlocutory judgment against Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd and Ng Hui Fen but was not awarded damages. The Deputy Registrar found the Claimant's conduct towards the self-represented 2nd Defendant was not even-handed, assessed her compensable time at 28 hours at $50 an hour, and ordered the Claimant to pay her costs fixed at $1,490 (all-in), with no order as to costs for the 1st Defendant.
What did the court decide in Haweina Trading Co Ltd v Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd [2026] SGDC 257?
The District Court ordered the Claimant to pay the self-represented 2nd Defendant costs fixed at $1,490 (all-in), made up of $1,400 for work done and $90 in disbursements. No order as to costs was made for the 1st Defendant.
How were costs for a self-represented defendant calculated in [2026] SGDC 257?
The Deputy Registrar applied O 21, r 7 of the Rules of Court 2021, assessing the compensable time at 28 hours and applying an hourly rate of $50, giving $1,400 for work done, plus $90 for transport disbursements.
Cases Cited (2)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGDC 257)