Calvin Cheng pursues seizure of Iris Koh’s assets over unpaid court costs from failed injunction
Lawyers for former Nominated MP Calvin Cheng and a court sheriff attempted to seize possessions from Healing the Divide founder Iris Koh and her husband, Raymond Ng, on 10 February over unpaid legal costs. Koh questioned the action as they awaiting a court decision on 25 February. Cheng intends to apply for a second enforcement attempt.
SINGAPORE: On 10 February, lawyers representing former Nominated MP Calvin Cheng, accompanied by a court sheriff, arrived at the Farrer Park Road home of Healing the Divide founder Iris Koh and her husband, Raymond Ng, to enforce a court order for the seizure of their possessions.
No items, however, were seized during the visit. In video recorded by Koh, the parties remained outside the flat and the officers left after serving notice.
The enforcement action arose from unpaid costs that the court ordered after two interim rulings in the ongoing defamation suit: the court struck out the claims of three of the five original plaintiffs, and it also dismissed an urgent bid for an injunction against Cheng.
Koh and Ng allegedly did not pay those costs, and enforcement orders were issued on 21 January.
In December 2024, the District Court struck out the claims of three of the five plaintiffs — Raymond Ng, Bevan Tey and Chan Swee Cheong — after finding they were not individually identified in Cheng’s Facebook post.
The suit centres on Cheng’s June 2024 Facebook post accusing Koh, Bowyer and others of spreading “misinformation” about COVID-19 vaccines and “literally killing people.”
The plaintiffs argued the post was defamatory.
The court, however, refused to grant an urgent injunction to force Cheng to take the post down, finding that the statements were not clearly defamatory on their face and that Cheng may have defences such as qualified privilege and fair comment. The judge called the injunction bid “wholly misconceived.”
The court dismissed an interlocutory injunction sought by all five plaintiffs — Koh, Ng, Bowyer, Tey and Chan — which had asked the court to compel Cheng to remove his comments and refrain from making similar statements.
District Judge Chiah Kok Khun described the injunction application as “wholly misconceived” and ordered the plaintiffs to pay Cheng S$8,000 plus GST in costs for that failed bid. He also awarded Cheng a further S$2,500 plus GST for successfully striking out the claims brought by Ng, Tey and Chan.
All five original plaintiffs — Koh, Ng, Bowyer, Tey and Chan — were made jointly liable for the S$8,000 costs of the failed injunction. Bowyer, Tey and Chan have since paid, but Koh and Ng have not.
The first enforcement order sought to seize about S$4,900 worth of property from Koh and Ng, while a second order targeted S$2,300 worth of property belonging to Ng.
Although forced entry is not usually carried out on the first attempt, it may be considered in subsequent enforcement actions.
Koh claims enforcement premature as court decision on payment awaits on 25 February
Following the incident, Koh took to Facebook, claiming that she and her husband were awaiting a court decision regarding the variation of the cost order, which was scheduled for 25 February.
She also criticised the enforcement attempt, referring to it as a "sting operation" due to the presence of cameramen and members of the press.
In a video posted online, Koh confronted the lawyer outside her home, calling the move "inappropriate."
Cheng, in response, stated that he intended to apply for a second attempt at enforcement, emphasising the importance of recovering the costs.
“Costs of living are high. Every cent matters,” he said in a Facebook post.
Ng and Koh face separate criminal charges
In a separate legal matter, Ng is facing 12 cheating charges involving nearly S$61,000 linked to Vendshare, a company dealing with vending machines.
As a former director of the firm, he has stated that he will not plead guilty. His case is scheduled for mention on 7 March.
Meanwhile, Koh faces 14 charges, including criminal conspiracy and harassment.
She has claimed trial, with her next court hearing expected on 4 March.
Editor’s note (29 October 2025):
This article was amended to clarify that (i) only some plaintiffs’ claims were struck out and the remaining claims are ongoing, (ii) the enforcement action concerned unpaid court-ordered costs from interim applications, (iii) no property was seized during the first enforcement visit to Koh’s home and (iv) Koh did not deny entry to the court sheriff.
