United Overseas Bank Limited v Sgmade Co-Operates Pte. Ltd.

United Overseas Bank Limited (UOB) brought Originating Application No 246 of 2026, a mortgage action, against SGmade Co-Operates Pte Ltd. Under a letter of offer dated 12 June 2023, UOB had granted the defendant a line of credit of $556,200, repayable in 312 monthly instalments and secured by a mortgage over a unit at Oxley Bizhub.

The defendant defaulted on instalments. UOB's former solicitors demanded the arrears on 9 September 2025, and on 22 October 2025 its present solicitors told the defendant that the facility had been recalled and demanded $542,508.28, the full outstanding amount. Neither demand was met, and a notice to quit was also ignored. UOB then sought vacant possession, payment of the outstanding sum with interest at default rates, indemnity costs, and a late payment charge of $80 on each instalment not paid on its due date. The defendant was unrepresented and did not attend either hearing.

1. Whether a lender that has recalled a loan and seeks the full outstanding sum may still impose a late payment charge on each missed instalment
2. Whether the supporting affidavit met the requirements of O 52 r 3 of the Rules of Court 2021
3. Whether the bank could obtain orders letting it vary interest rates and charges at its discretion
4. What costs should be awarded in an uncontested mortgage action

At the first hearing the court raised three problems even though the application was unopposed. The supporting affidavit did not identify which terms had been breached or how UOB became entitled to recall the facility, which fell short of O 52 rr 3(4) and 3(7). The court stressed that an affidavit in a mortgage action must set out the facts establishing entitlement and give notice of the claimant's case, and that shortfalls may carry adverse costs consequences. It also questioned the basis for orders that would let UOB unilaterally vary a court order.

On the late payment charge, UOB first gave what the court called an evasive explanation, then conceded through counsel that it was not legally entitled to the charge after terminating the facility. The court held the concession was properly made. Clause 4.7 of the facility letter applies the charge only to an instalment payment not paid when due. Once the facility is recalled the whole sum is immediately payable, so there are no instalments left. The neighbouring late interest charge expressly covers capital repayments and interest as well, which confirmed the narrower reach of the late payment charge. Even if the clause were ambiguous, the contra proferentem rule would resolve it against UOB as the drafter of a standard form contract. The court noted that UOB had made similar claims in past cases and dropped them when queried, and said it should take a principled and consistent position.

On costs, the court started at the lowest end of the Appendix G range because the matter was straightforward, adjusted upwards for UOB's contractual right to indemnity costs, refused costs of the adjournment caused by UOB's own shortcomings, and allowed the disbursements claimed.

After UOB amended its application to drop the late payment charge and the variation prayers, the Assistant Registrar granted an order in terms of the amended originating application. Costs were fixed at $7,500 (all-in), and no stay of execution of the order for vacant possession was granted.