Low Jun Hong & 5 Ors v Hong Qi Yu & Anor

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHCR 11 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and Restructuring and Dissolution Act, among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGHCR 11 High Court Registrar 10 April 2026 HC/OC 984/2025 ( HC/SUM 441/2026,HC/SUM 438/2026 ) 25 min read

5 cases cited (4 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court Registrar
Decided	10 April 2026
Judge	Teo Guan Siew
Charges / claim	Contract
Counsel	Dauntless Law Chambers LLC, Forte Law LLC, Nine Yard Chambers LLC, Aaron Leong, Aric Amaraganthan, Nichol Yeo, Sarah Khan, Senthil Dayalan

Source: [2026] SGHCR 11, High Court Registrar, decided 10 April 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Contract – Privity of contract – Whether third parties can rely on arbitration clause by virtue of Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 2001

Practice Areas

Contract

Judges (1)

Teo Guan Siew Delivered

Counsel (8)

Dauntless Law Chambers LLC Firm Forte Law LLC Firm Nine Yard Chambers LLC Firm Aaron Leong Counsel Plaintiff Aric Amaraganthan Counsel Defendant Nichol Yeo Counsel Defendant Sarah Khan Counsel Plaintiff Senthil Dayalan Counsel Defendant

Parties (8)

Chen Yuanjing Plaintiff Chim Tat Hong Plaintiff Erin Koo Kee Hoon Defendant Hong Qi Yu Defendant Low Jun Hong Plaintiff Lum Marn Chi Plaintiff Peter McCorkindale Plaintiff Sean Joseph McKendrick Plaintiff

Case Significance

Low Jun Hong and others v Hong Qi Yu and another [2026] SGHCR 11, decided by Deputy Registrar Teo Guan Siew on 10 April 2026, arose from the collapse of a digital asset trading exchange. Six named claimants, representing 272 individuals who held customer accounts with the exchange, brought a representative action for fraudulent misrepresentation against Hong Qi Yu and Erin Koo Kee Hoon, former management of the company that operated the exchange. The defendants applied to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration, relying on an arbitration clause in the customer service agreement between the company and each customer — even though the defendants themselves were not parties to that agreement. DR Teo dismissed both stay applications, holding that a non-party to a contract could not invoke an arbitration clause in that contract by virtue of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 2001. The case highlights the limits of arbitration clauses in the context of digital asset exchange failures, where former managers seek to deflect claims into arbitration under contracts to which they were not signatories.

[2026] SGHCR 11 explained

Low Jun Hong & 5 Ors v Hong Qi Yu & Anor ([2026] SGHCR 11) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 10 April 2026. It is categorised under Contract. 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] SGHCR 11 about?

Low Jun Hong & 5 Ors v Hong Qi Yu & Anor ([2026] SGHCR 11) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Contract – Privity of contract – Whether third parties can rely on arbitration clause by virtue of Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 2001”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGHCR 11 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and Restructuring and Dissolution Act, among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

Six representative claimants, acting on behalf of 272 customers of the digital asset exchange Tokenize Xchange (operated by AmazingTech Pte Ltd), commenced proceedings against the founder-director and Chief Operating Officer for fraudulent misrepresentation following the company's winding up. The defendants applied to stay the proceedings in favour of arbitration under an arbitration clause in the customer service agreements, despite not being parties to those agreements, relying on ss 9(1) and 9(2) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 2001. The Deputy Registrar dismissed both stay applications, holding that the defendants as non-parties to the customer service agreements could not invoke the arbitration clause.

Can company directors invoke an arbitration clause in a customer contract to stay court proceedings against them personally ([2026] SGHCR 11)?

In Low Jun Hong v Hong Qi Yu [2026] SGHCR 11, Deputy Registrar Teo Guan Siew held on 10 April 2026 that former management of a digital asset exchange could not rely on the arbitration clause in customer service agreements to stay representative proceedings brought by 272 account holders, because the defendants were not parties to those contracts.

What was the representative action in Low Jun Hong and others v Hong Qi Yu and another [2026] SGHCR 11 about?

Six claimants representing 272 individuals sued the former management of a wound-up digital asset trading exchange for fraudulent misrepresentation. When the defendants applied to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration under the customer service agreement's arbitration clause, Deputy Registrar Teo dismissed the applications on 10 April 2026, finding the defendants had no right to invoke that clause.