SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
24 April 2026
Case summary
DVA and another v DVC [2026] SGHC(I) 4
Singapore International Commercial Court — Originating Application No 8 of 2026 (Summons No 3402 of 2025)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision of Aidan Xu J, Anthony Meagher IJ and David Goddard IJ (grounds of decision delivered by David Goddard IJ):
Outcome: The Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) granted the interlocutory proprietary injunction and the ancillary orders for disclosure, but declined to grant permission for the claimants to use the disclosed information in support of prospective proceedings in other jurisdictions for similar injunctive relief.
Background
1 The claimants and a number of related companies (together, the “Platform Group”) operate a digital asset trading platform (the “Platform”). The defendant is a longstanding customer of the Platform Group and held significant assets on the Platform across numerous accounts. In particular, prior to 2018, he held 2,500 Bitcoin (“BTC”) and 2,500 Bitcoin Cash (“BCH”) in two specialised wallets on the Platform.
2 In April 2018, the Platform Group discontinued support for those specialised wallets. In March 2020, 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH in the defendant’s specialised wallets were transferred off the Platform, leaving those wallets with a zero balance. The Platform Group claim that for technical reasons, the withdrawals were not recorded on the Platform Group’s internal ledgers, which resulted in the Platform Group continuing to operate on the assumption that the 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH remained in the defendant’s specialised wallets.
3 In July 2024, a relationship manager from the Platform Group sought to assist the defendant to recover the digital assets that the Platform Group believed remained in his specialised wallets. 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH were subsequently transferred by the Platform Group into the defendant’s other Platform wallets (the “July 2024 transfers”).
4 The defendant proceeded to deal with those digital assets. 20 BTC was converted into approximately 816,773 USD Coin (“USDC”). This 816,773 USDC and a total of 780 BTC (the “relevant assets”) were then transferred into various wallets not hosted by the Platform Group between July 2024 and November 2024. There were also further dealings with some of those assets.
5 In February 2025, the claimants discovered that the balances in their internal ledgers for the defendant’s specialised wallets were incorrect, and realised that they had made the July 2024 transfers by mistake. The claimants proceeded to freeze the defendant’s Platform wallets and recover the remaining assets (ie, 1,700 BTC and 2,500 BCH).
6 In November 2025, the claimants commenced SIC/OA 8/2026 to recover the relevant assets. Their pleaded causes of action include unjust enrichment, a proprietary claim under a constructive trust, fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation, and a claim for breach of the contractual provisions governing the services provided by the Platform Group to its customers. HC/SUM 3402/2025 is the claimants’ application for an interlocutory proprietary injunction over the relevant assets and their proceeds as well as various ancillary orders.
Decision
7 The Court granted the proprietary injunction. First, there was a serious question to be tried that the relevant assets were held on constructive trust by the defendant for the claimants. There was sufficient evidence to show that it was arguable that the balances in the defendant’s specialised wallets were in effect zero, and that the claimants had credited 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH into the defendant’s other Platform wallets as a result of their mistaken belief about the remaining balances in the specialised wallets. It was also arguable that the defendant knew of the claimants’ mistake in July 2024, or at the latest, in February 2025 when the claimants discovered their mistake and contacted the defendant: at [34]–[38].
8 Second, the balance of convenience lay in favour of the grant of the injunction. While the relevant assets are fungible, the evidence indicated that the defendant lacks liquid assets, as he had to use part of the relevant assets as security for a loan to meet his legal costs in these proceedings. The defendant did not provide any up-to-date evidence about his financial position or the value of his current asset holdings. There was therefore genuine doubt about the defendant’s ability to satisfy a substantial judgment debt, such that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimants. Conversely, the defendant would be adequately compensated for any losses he may suffer as a result of not being able to deal with the relevant assets if the claimants are ultimately unsuccessful at trial, pursuant to the Platform Group’s undertaking as to damages. There was also no delay on the claimants’ part in applying for the proprietary injunction, as the Platform Group were engaged in reasonable attempts to resolve the matter without resorting to litigation: at [46], [49] and [52]–[54].
9 The Court also granted ancillary orders requiring the defendant to disclose the whereabouts of the relevant assets. However, the Court declined to grant permission for the claimants to use the disclosed information in support of prospective proceedings in other jurisdictions seeking similar injunctive relief. The claimants would not be prejudiced by having to separately apply for leave to do so as and when the need arises: at [56] and [59].
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.