SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Swee Yen Koh, Joel Quek, Daniel Gaw and Chunlong Lin, WongPartnership
How Courts Are Applying the Amended Procedural Rules on Enforcement of Judgments in Singapore The 2024 edition of this write-up introduced Singa - pore’s major overhaul of its civil procedure framework from the Rules of Court 2014 (“ROC 2014”) to the Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2021”), which took effect on 1 April 2022. That article emphasised that, even though the statutory basis for certain principles is no longer found in the ROC 2021, the general principles derived from cases on the ROC 2014 continue to apply to cases under the ROC 2021. This write-up focuses on some of the key amend - ments to the procedural rules on enforcement in the ROC 2021 as well as the court’s application of the revamped rules, which have resulted in more struc - tured and practical enforcement procedures. While the application of the ROC 2021 is still in the early stages, the results thus far reveal a more robust and responsive enforcement regime, positioning Singa - pore as a leading jurisdiction for effective judgment enforcement. Categories of movable assets subject to enforcement proceedings expanded under the ROC 2021 Cryptocurrency Another significant development in the enforcement regime is the express recognition of cryptocurrency as a form of property subject to enforcement orders. Order 22, Rule 1 of the ROC 2021 defines “movable property” to include not only traditional assets such as cash, debt, deposits, bonds and shares, but also cryptocurrency or other digital currency. This position was affirmed by the High Court in ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin (2023) SGHC 199 (“ ByBit ”), where the court noted that cryptocurrency is expressly recog - nised as property capable of being the subject of an enforcement order (at (30)). The court also noted that the procedures for serving a notice of seizure on per - sons or entities in possession or control of movable property (Order 22, Rule 6 (4)(b) of the ROC 2021) or on those who register ownership of intangible mov - able property (Order 22, Rule 6 (4)(g) of the ROC 2021) are logically applicable to digital assets such as cryptocurrency. The recognition of cryptocurrency as enforceable property represents a practical adapta -
tion of traditional enforcement mechanisms to modern financial realities. However, while the legal basis for targeting crypto - currency in enforcement proceedings is now clear - er, practical challenges remain. Unlike conventional assets held by identifiable financial institutions, cryp - tocurrency may often be stored in decentralised wal - lets or controlled by private keys known only to the debtor. This raises issues concerning the identifica - tion, location, and effective seizure of such assets. Enforcement may also be complicated by the cross- border and pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions, which can frustrate efforts to trace or freeze assets. To address these challenges, the court will need to clarify the standards of proof required to establish ownership or control of digital assets, recog - nise new methods of service or seizure suited to digi - tal property, and issue guidance on the appointment of receivers or third-party custodians with technical expertise. As disputes involving digital and cryptocur - rency assets become more common, judicial innova - tion and procedural adaptation will undoubtedly play an essential role in ensuring that enforcement mecha - nisms remain robust and effective. Membership in clubs and societies and other intangible property In a similar vein, the expanded definition of “movable property” under the ROC 2021 now includes “mem - bership in clubs and societies”. This is a deliberate and notable shift away from the previous framework under the ROC 2014, where it was arguable that intan - gible assets such as club memberships were not mov - able assets that could be seized for the purposes of enforcement. In KLW Holdings Ltd v Straitsworld Advisory Ltd and another (2017) SGHCR 11 (“ KLW ”), the court was presented with the opportunity to consider whether a writ of seizure and sale under the ROC 2014 could be issued in respect of a club membership. In that case, one of the defendants was in possession of an ordinary membership (which was transferable) in the Singapore Island Country Club (the “Membership”), and the plaintiff had requested that the Membership be seized and sold in satisfaction of the judgment
434 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook