UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED v XU YUANCHEN & Anor

Facts

The claimant, United Overseas Bank Limited, is one of Singapore's three main local banks and is listed on the Singapore Exchange. The first defendant, Mr Xu Yuanchen, is the chief editor of the website The Online Citizen, which is published by the second defendant, a Taiwan company, and is a declared online location under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019. From 27 March 2025 to 31 March 2025 the defendants published articles and Facebook posts relaying claims by the former chief executive of a customer, Yang Kee Logistics, that the bank had coerced the company, leaked confidential information in breach of banking secrecy, issued a default letter that sabotaged rescue efforts, and caused its collapse. Further articles followed after a letter of demand.

The bank sued for libel and malicious falsehood in Originating Claim No 259 of 2025 and obtained interlocutory judgment in default on 1 October 2025. The defendants did not attend the assessment of damages, though the first defendant objected by email to the service of documents out of Singapore and by email. The bank sought S$150,000 in general damages only and said it would donate any sum recovered to charity.

Issues

1. Whether the court's approval was needed to serve the notice of appointment for assessment of damages out of Singapore
2. What quantum of general damages was appropriate for a defamed bank given the gravity, the parties' standing and the extent of publication
3. Whether the court's natural indignation should be considered as an independent factor and whether malice was proved
4. Whether costs should be on the High Court or the District Court scale

Holding

The Assistant Registrar allowed the claim for general damages, assessing them at S$125,000 payable by the defendants jointly and severally. Costs were fixed on the District Court scale at S$16,500, with disbursements of S$1,494.36, also on a joint and several basis.

Reasoning

On service, no further approval was needed because the notice is not an originating process and approval had been obtained to serve the originating claim abroad. Out of caution, fresh service by email was ordered and a new notice was filed and served in time, so the later objections failed.

On quantum, the defamation was grave: specific and detailed allegations of scandal, coercion of a customer and criminal conduct went to the core attributes of a bank, and adverse reader comments showed the damage. The bank's high standing called for a higher award, while the website was fairly well known, though its status as a declared online location might make readers sceptical. Publication was wide and online, with the first posts reaching at least 325,000 views and 698 shares, and the material remained accessible. The defendants published more after the letter of demand and never apologised or retracted.

Following recent High Court decisions, the court's natural indignation was not treated as a separate factor, to avoid double counting and keep the award compensatory. Malice was not proved because the bank offered no evidence that the allegations were false or that it had engaged with the defendants on their substance, and persistence alone did not show malice.

Among precedents, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Wright Norman [1994] 3 SLR(R) 410 involved a bank but less serious allegations and narrower publication, and no uplift was given for its age. The award was set above the S$100,000 in Sin Heak Hin Pte Ltd v Yuasa Battery Singapore Co Pte Ltd [1995] 3 SLR(R) 123 given the graver allegations, wider reach and the claimant's prominence, despite the absence of malice. Because the award was within the District Court limit and the action was brought in the High Court only to help enforcement in Taiwan, District Court scale costs applied.

From the judgment