LAO IOK SIM @LIU YUCHAN v UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 17–23 August 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Ramu Miyapan |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure, Tort |
| Counsel | Phoenix Law Corporation, Shook Lin & Bok LLP, Ho Junjie, Ho Wei Liang Sherman, Leong Kit Weng |
Source: [2026] SGHCR 36, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Lao Iok Sim (alias Liu Yuchan) v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2026] SGHCR 36 was decided by AR Ramu Miyapan in the General Division of the High Court on 18 August 2026, after a hearing on 9 July 2026, in Originating Claim No 271 of 2026 (Summons No 1725 of 2026). The claimant sought to recover S$500,000.00 lost through ten transfers made from her savings account with the defendant between 17 June 2022 and 20 June 2022, alleging a reasonably prudent banker would not have effected them. The defendant applied to strike out the statement of claim. The issue was the claimant's handling of a police report she had relied on in her pleading, which she produced in redacted form. The court struck out the claim as an abuse of process under O 9 r 16(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021.
[2026] SGHCR 36 explained
LAO IOK SIM @LIU YUCHAN v UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED ([2026] SGHCR 36) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 18 August 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure and Tort. 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] SGHCR 36 about?
LAO IOK SIM @LIU YUCHAN v UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED ([2026] SGHCR 36) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Striking Out” and “Tort – Negligence – Breach of Duty”, 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] SGHCR 36 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHCR 4, [2024] SGHC 38, and [2023] SGHC 260, and 1 more. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How influential is [2026] SGHCR 36?
Within this corpus, [2026] SGHCR 36 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 General Division of the High Court heard United Overseas Bank Ltd's application to strike out the statement of claim of Lao Iok Sim (alias Liu Yuchan), who sought to recover S$500,000.00 transferred out of her savings account in June 2022. AR Ramu Miyapan found that the claimant had left out information about her police report from her pleading, resisted its production and then produced it redacted without explanation. The claim was struck out under O 9 r 16(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021 as an abuse of process, with costs of S$6,000.00 all-in for the application.
Why was the claim struck out in [2026] SGHCR 36?
AR Ramu Miyapan held the claim was an abuse of process under O 9 r 16(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021, because the claimant omitted key facts from her statement of claim, resisted producing her police report and provided it redacted without explanation.
What costs were ordered in Lao Iok Sim v United Overseas Bank ([2026] SGHCR 36)?
The court ordered costs of the application of S$6,000.00 all-in in favour of the defendant. It awarded a further S$6,500.00 all-in in favour of the defendant for costs incurred in the entire action to date.
Cases Cited (10)
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] SGHCR 36)