DVA & Anor v DVC

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHC(I) 6 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGHC(I) 6 Singapore International Commercial Court 19 June 2026 • SIC/OA 8/2026 ( SIC/SUM 25/2026 ) • 28 min read

9 cases cited

Outcome

Application dismissed

We accordingly dismiss the application in SUM 25.58 Costs directions will be given separately.

Source: [2026] SGHC(I) 6, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided 19 June 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Featured in the weekly digest — week of 15–21 June 2026 →

Key facts

Court	Singapore International Commercial Court
Decided	19 June 2026
Judges	Aidan Xu, Anthony Meagher, David Goddard
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Outcome	Application dismissed
Counsel	Incisive Law LLC, Setia Law LLC, Ayana Ki Su Jin, Bethel Chan Ruiyi, Davis Tan Yong Chuan, Ma Ruiyuan, Ong Tun Wei Danny, Wu Muyu

Source: [2026] SGHC(I) 6, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided 19 June 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Rules of court — Singapore International Commercial Court — Offshore case

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (3)

Aidan Xu Delivered Anthony Meagher Coram David Goddard Coram

Counsel (8)

Incisive Law LLC Firm Setia Law LLC Firm Ayana Ki Su Jin Counsel Claimants Bethel Chan Ruiyi Counsel Claimants Davis Tan Yong Chuan Counsel Defendant Ma Ruiyuan Counsel Defendant Ong Tun Wei Danny Counsel Claimants Wu Muyu Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

DVA Claimant DVB Claimant DVC Defendant

Case Significance

[2026] SGHC(I) 6, decided on 19 June 2026, is a Singapore International Commercial Court ruling on SUM 25 of 2026, the defendant's application in Originating Application No 8 of 2026 for a determination that the main action against claimants DVA and DVB is an "offshore case" under Order 3 Rule 6 of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021. Aidan Xu J, delivering the judgment of a coram that also included Anthony Meagher IJ and David Goddard IJ, noted that an offshore-case finding carries two consequences: parties may be represented by foreign lawyers not qualified in Singapore law, and the SICC may be more inclined to grant a confidentiality order. Heard on 15 May 2026, the judgment cites 9 Singapore authorities and references the Arbitration Act, the International Arbitration Act, and the Legal Profession Act.

[2026] SGHC(I) 6 explained

DVA & Anor v DVC ([2026] SGHC(I) 6) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court on 19 June 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2026] SGHC(I) 6 about?

DVA & Anor v DVC ([2026] SGHC(I) 6) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Rules of court — Singapore International Commercial Court — Offshore case”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGHC(I) 6 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC(I) 6 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC(I) 4. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

19 June 2026

Case summary

DVA and another v DVC [2026] SGHC(I) 6
Singapore International Commercial Court — Originating Application No 8 of 2026 (Summons No 25 of 2026)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of Aidan Xu J, Anthony Meagher IJ and David Goddard IJ (judgment delivered by Aidan Xu J):

Outcome: The Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed the defendant’s application for a decision that the action in SIC/OA 8/2026 is an “offshore case” under O 3 r 6 of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (“SICC Rules”).

Background

1 The claimants and their related companies (collectively, “Platform Group”) operate a cryptocurrency trading platform (“Platform”). The defendant is a customer of the Platform Group and held assets on the Platform across various wallets.

2 In March 2020, 2,500 Bitcoin (“BTC”) and 2,500 Bitcoin Cash (“BCH”) were transferred out of the defendant’s specialised wallets, leaving them effectively empty. These withdrawals were not recorded on the Platform Group’s internal ledger due to alleged technical errors.

3 Subsequently, in July 2024, a relationship manager from the Platform Group assisted the defendant in accessing the assets in his specialised wallets. 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH (“Transferred Assets”) were thereafter credited into the defendant’s Platform wallets. The claimants allege that they effected these transfers under the mistaken belief that substantial credit balances remained in the defendant’s specialised wallets.

4 The defendant proceeded to deal with the Transferred Assets. A total of 800 BTC (“Relevant Assets”) was transferred off the Platform into various unhosted wallets, leaving balances of 1,700 BTC and 2,500 BCH in the defendant’s Platform wallets (“Remaining Assets”), which were recovered by the claimants upon discovering their alleged mistake.

5 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, deceit and/or negligent misrepresentation, and breaches of the agreement governing the services provided by the Platform Group to its customers (“Platform User Agreement”).

6 The defendant counterclaimed for the Remaining Assets. His pleaded causes of action include the tort of conversion, unjust enrichment, and breaches of the Platform User Agreement. The defendant also sought a declaration that he was the rightful owner of the Transferred Assets under the Platform User Agreement.

Decision

7 The Court dismissed the application, finding that there was a substantial connection between the action and Singapore: at [57].

8 While the action involved competing proprietary claims to cryptocurrency assets not located in Singapore, those proprietary claims were ultimately founded on the terms of the Platform User Agreement, and the contractual claims could not be described as secondary to the proprietary claims. The claimants’ contractual claim for damages constituted an independent basis upon which the claimants may seek recovery, which was significant given that a portion of the Relevant Assets could no longer be located. The defendant’s proprietary claim to the assets was premised on cl 5.19 of the Platform User Agreement, the effect of which would clearly be relevant to the determination of the rightful owner of the digital assets in dispute: at [34]–[37].

9 In assessing whether an action has a substantial connection with Singapore under O 3 r 3 of the SICC Rules, the “action” should be viewed holistically, taking into account the causes of action advanced and the allegations made by both sides. The defendant’s counterclaim could not be analysed separately from the claimants’ claims, particularly since the quantum of the defendant’s counterclaim far exceeded that of the claimants’ claims: at [38]–[41].

10 The place of performance of the relevant contracts is an important factor in assessing whether the action has a substantial connection with Singapore. In the present case, the first claimant is alleged to have breached the warranties given under cl 5.19 of the Platform User Agreement. The place of performance of the first claimant’s obligations was expressly stated to be Singapore. This was sufficient to give rise to a substantial connection between the action and Singapore, given that the performance of the first claimant’s obligations was central to the defendant’s counterclaim. The defendant’s other pleaded causes of action in the tort of conversion and unjust enrichment were also premised on the same conduct on which the breaches of warranties are based: at [24], [44]–[46] and [49].

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.

What is an 'offshore case' at issue in DVA & Anor v DVC [2026] SGHC(I) 6?

In [2026] SGHC(I) 6, the Singapore International Commercial Court considered whether Originating Application No 8 of 2026 was an "offshore case" under Order 3 Rule 6 of the SICC Rules 2021, defined as an action with no substantial connection to Singapore, which the defendant bore the burden of proving.