SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Koh Swee Yen SC, Wendy Lin, Tiong Teck Wee and Monica Chong Wan Yee, WongPartnership LLP
Litigation in Singapore: an Introduction Developments relating to cryptocurrency The residence of the entity or person controlling a crypto-asset determines the asset’s location – Cheong Jun Yoong v Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 21 In determining whether an action concerning crypto-assets bore sufficient nexus to Singa- pore (making the Singapore court an appropriate court to hear the action), the High Court held that the location of the person (ie, where the person resides) in control of the private key to a crypto- asset is treated as the situs of that crypto-asset. The Court reasoned that a crypto-asset’s loca- tion cannot be determined by its physical pres- ence, as it has no physical identity. Therefore, its location is best determined by looking at where it is controlled. As the entity and/or person with control of the crypto-assets in this case resided in Singapore, the Court found that there was a good arguable case that those crypto-assets were situated in Singapore. This was the first reported Singapore case addressing the situs of crypto-assets. Cryptocurrency debts considered debts for the purposes of Section 125(1)(e) of the IRDA – Loh Cheng Lee Aaron v Hodlnaut Pte Ltd [2024] 4 SLR 1683 In the context of a winding-up application, the High Court held that cryptocurrency holdings of a company – ie, its obligation to pay cryptocur- rency to its creditors – came within the defini- tion of “debts” under Section 125(1)(e) read with Section 125(2)(c) of the Insolvency, Restructur- ing and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA). They are therefore relevant in determining whether the company is insolvent. Applying the test for cash flow insolvency in Sun Electric Power Pte Ltd v RCMA Asia Pte Ltd (for- merly known as Tong Teik Pte Ltd) [2021] 2 SLR
478, the Court held that it should look at the holistic position of the company and consider not just liquidated claims, but also those that might be made on the non-monetary assets of the company and which may ultimately be pay- able in money. In so holding, the Court high- lighted that a previous unreported decision in Algorand Foundation Ltd v Three Arrows Capital Pte Ltd (HC/CWU 246/2022) did not stand for any proposition that pursuing and obtaining a judgment to obtain liquidated damages is nec- essary before an assessment is made of cash flow insolvency. Developments relating to arbitration The doctrine of transnational issue estoppel applies in the context of international arbitration – The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG [2024] 1 SLR 56 (“India v DT”) In a decision that concluded the long-running dispute in India v DT, the Court of Appeal con- firmed the applicability of the doctrine of transna- tional issue estoppel (“Doctrine”) in the context of international arbitration. Where the Doctrine applies, a party to a prior decision of the seat court is precluded in certain circumstances from re-litigating points that were previously raised and determined by the seat court. The following conditions must be met in order for the Doctrine to apply. • The foreign judgment must: (a) be a final and conclusive decision on the merits; (b) originate from a court of competent juris- diction that has transnational jurisdiction over the party sought to be bound; and (c) not be subject to any defences to recog- nition that include circumstances where recognising or enforcing the foreign judgment would result in a contravention of the public policy of the forum, where
1263 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook