Singapore’s High Court has ordered Bloomberg News and one of its reporters to pay S$460,000 — roughly $355,734 U.S. dollars — in damages after finding that an article published by the outlet defamed two government ministers. The ruling was released Tuesday.
Both Bloomberg and reporter Low De Wei are each required to pay S$230,000 to the two ministers. That figure breaks down into S$170,000 in general damages and an additional S$60,000 in aggravated damages per minister, according to the court’s judgment.
Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait expressed disappointment with the decision, saying the company continues to support its reporter and newsroom. In an email to Reuters, he stated: “We argued at trial that our reporting was accurate and served an important public interest, and we continue to believe that the ministers have imposed an extremely strained meaning on what was a solid story.” Micklethwait did not indicate whether Bloomberg intends to appeal the ruling.
The legal team representing the ministers did not respond to requests for comment.
In her written judgment, Justice Audrey Lim concluded: “The dominant purpose behind the article was to publish a story about the claimants, in particular about their (good class bungalow) transactions. The broader narrative of how wealthy individuals in Singapore use non-caveated transactions and trust structures to keep their dealings secret or ‘off-radar’ was the cover devised to carry that story.”
The lawsuit was brought by Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng, who sued Bloomberg and Low De Wei over a December 2024 story that examined secrecy surrounding high-end property deals. The article referenced transactions connected to both ministers.
Bloomberg had defended its coverage as a look at broader trends in luxury real estate transactions, arguing that the two ministers were simply newsworthy examples. The outlet maintained that the article never accused either minister of wrongdoing.
Attorneys for the ministers pushed for aggravated damages, arguing that Bloomberg had acted with malice. They pointed to the news organization’s decision to remove the paywall on the article after receiving a correction order issued under Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act.
A Bloomberg editor, in a sworn statement, said the paywall was lifted specifically so readers could view the correction notice, which was displayed at the top of the article on Bloomberg’s website. That notice appeared alongside a statement in which Bloomberg said it “respectfully disagrees” with the correction order while standing behind its reporting.
Justice Lim found that Low had been reckless and inaccurate in characterizing local government property records as opaque for non-caveated bungalow transactions. The judge noted that such records are in fact publicly accessible and searchable through the Singapore Land Authority’s Integrated Land Information Service — a resource Low himself had used while conducting research for the story.
“I find that Bloomberg’s conduct in removing the paywall pertaining to the article also demonstrates malice,” the judge wrote.
