SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Swee Yen Koh, Joel Quek, Daniel Gaw and Chunlong Lin, WongPartnership LLP
How Courts Are Applying the Amended Procedural Rules on Enforcement of Judgments in Singapore Building on last year’s discussion of Singapore’s tran - sition from the Rules of Court 2014 (“ROC 2014”) to the Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2021”), this article examines further judicial developments in the enforce - ment of judgments under the new procedural frame - work. The cases discussed below shed light on how courts are approaching procedural questions under the ROC 2021, clarifying how the revamped rules operate in practice. Categories of movable assets subject to enforcement proceedings expanded under the ROC 2021 Cryptocurrency The authors previously discussed the High Court’s decision in ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin [2023], SGHC 199, which affirmed that cryptocurrency is expressly recognised as property capable of enforce - ment under O 22 r 1 of the ROC 2021. The court noted that procedures for serving a notice of seizure on per - sons controlling movable property (O 22 r 6 (4)(b)) or registering ownership of intangible movable property (O 22 r 6 (4)(g)) are logically applicable to digital assets. While the legal foundation for pursuing cryptocur - rency in enforcement proceedings has become more settled, significant practical obstacles remain. Digital assets are often held in decentralised wallets secured by private keys rather than through identifiable institu - tions, and blockchain transactions are pseudonymous and can cross borders instantly. Parties therefore face real difficulties identifying, locating, and seizing such assets. Practitioners should note the emerging judicial approach to determining the jurisdictional location of cryptocurrency – a threshold issue for enforcement. In Cheong Jun Yoong v Three Arrows Capital Ltd [2024], 4 SLR 907, the High Court held that a cryptoasset’s location is “best determined by looking at where it is controlled” (at paragraph 60). The residence of the private key holder is treated as the situs of the crypto- asset (at paragraph 62). Cryptocurrency controlled by a Singapore-resident debtor may therefore be treat -
ed as situated in Singapore, regardless of where the blockchain network’s nodes are located. A related challenge is valuing cryptocurrency for damages. The High Court addressed this in Fan- tom Foundation Ltd v Multichain Foundation Ltd [2024], SGHC 173 (“ Fantom ”) and Kalen , Alexandru v World Exchange Services Pte Ltd [2026], 3 SLR 1094 (“ Kalen ”). Both decisions confirm that data from cryptocurrency aggregators such as CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko may be used as reliable evidence of market value. A key issue is the appropriate valuation date. In Fan- tom , Mohamed Faizal JC (as he then was) observed that “[g]iven the volatility of cryptocurrencies, the breach date rule may not always represent the best assessment methodology” (at paragraph 42). In Kalen , Lee Sieu Kin SJ clarified that the valuation date is linked to mitigation: “the date of valuation should be at the time when a claimant is reasonably expected to mitigate their losses” (at paragraph 39). Notably, the court declined to adopt the New York “highest intermediate value” rule ( Diamond Fortress Technolo- gies Inc v EverID Inc , 274 A.3d 287), holding that this approach “gives the claimant the benefit of perfect hindsight and therefore risks unfairly giving him a windfall” (at paragraph 40). Practitioners should be prepared to adduce expert evidence on valuation and act promptly to mitigate losses, whether by demanding return of assets, com - mencing proceedings, or purchasing substitutes, to avoid arguments that damages should be assessed at an earlier date. Membership in clubs and societies and other intangible property The expanded definition of “movable property” under the ROC 2021 now includes “membership in clubs and societies” – a notable shift from the ROC 2014, where it was arguable that intangible assets such as club memberships could not be seized for enforce - ment. In KLW Holdings Ltd v Straitsworld Advisory Ltd [2017], SGHCR 11 ( KLW ), the court considered wheth - er a writ of seizure and sale under the ROC 2014 could
407 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook