Haweina Trading Co Ltd v Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd & Anor
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Chiah Kok Khun |
| Charges / claim | Tort |
| Counsel | Forward Legal LLC, Leng Ji En Paul, Tiffanie Lim Jing Wen |
Source: [2026] SGDC 307, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (3)
Case Significance
Haweina Trading Co Ltd v Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd & Another [2026] SGDC 307 was decided by District Judge Chiah Kok Khun in the District Court, with judgment dated 18 September 2026. The claimant, a Taiwan company providing eyelash beautification services, sued the defendants in defamation over more than 30 social media posts made between 18 April and 26 May 2025. Default interlocutory judgment was entered on 23 October 2025, leaving only damages. A deputy registrar awarded none, and the claimant appealed. The issue was whether a foreign corporate claimant had a trading or business reputation in Singapore capable of being injured. The court held the claimant adduced no such evidence, dismissed the appeal, and fixed costs at $1,700 (inclusive of disbursements) payable by the claimant to the 2nd defendant.
[2026] SGDC 307 explained
Haweina Trading Co Ltd v Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd & Anor ([2026] SGDC 307) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 18 September 2026. It is categorised under Tort. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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 307 about?
Haweina Trading Co Ltd v Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd & Anor ([2026] SGDC 307) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Defamation — Corporate claimant — Whether foreign corporate claimant had a Singapore reputation capable of been injured”, 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 307 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGDC 257 and [2026] SGDC 230. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The District Court heard an appeal by Haweina Trading Co Ltd, a Taiwan company, against a deputy registrar's decision awarding no damages in its defamation claim against Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd and Ng Hui Fen over more than 30 social media posts. Default interlocutory judgment had been entered, so only damages were in issue. The court held the claimant had not proved a trading or business reputation in Singapore, dismissed the appeal and fixed costs at $1,700 payable by the claimant to the 2nd defendant.
What was Haweina Trading Co Ltd v Bling Blink SG Pte Ltd about ([2026] SGDC 307)?
It was a defamation claim by a Taiwan eyelash beautification company over more than 30 social media posts. After default interlocutory judgment, the question was damages, and the court considered whether the claimant had a Singapore trading or business reputation.
What did the court decide in [2026] SGDC 307?
The District Court dismissed the claimant's appeal, finding it failed to show on a balance of probabilities that it had a Singapore reputation. No damages were awarded, and costs of $1,700 were fixed against the claimant.
Cases Cited (8)
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 307)