Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGHC 31
- Title: Alexandru Kalen v World Exchange Services Pte. Ltd.
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date: 9 February 2026
- Judges: Lee Seiu Kin SJ
- Originating Claim No: 609 of 2023
- Assessment of Damages No: Assessment of Damages No 5 of 2025
- Hearing Dates: 30 September, 1–2 October 2025
- Judgment Reserved: Yes
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Alexandru Kalen (representative claimant)
- Defendant/Respondent: World Exchange Services Pte. Ltd.
- Nature of Proceedings: Assessment of damages following liability findings in a representative claim
- Legal Areas (as reflected by the judgment): Damages (Assessment); Contract Remedies
- Parties / Claimants: 85 individuals (digital token and fiat monies “stored” with the defendant); one additional claimant had settled and withdrawn
- Key Contractual Instruments: User Agreement; Buyback Contract (token buyback obligation)
- Platform / Tokens: Online trading platform wex.nz (“WEX”); WEX tokens; cryptocurrencies and fiat monies deposited by users
- Prior Liability Proceedings: Summary judgment by Assistant Registrar Rajaram Vikram Raja; upheld on appeal by Justice Dedar Singh Gill
- Issues on Assessment: Quantity of tokens/monies as at 12 July 2018; valuation date; valuation of tokens/monies at that date
- Cases Cited (as provided): [2001] SGHC 28; [2010] SGCA 12; [2024] SGHC 173; [2025] SGCA 51; [2026] SGHC 31
- Judgment Length: 26 pages, 6,777 words
Summary
In Alexandru Kalen v World Exchange Services Pte. Ltd. ([2026] SGHC 31), the High Court (Lee Seiu Kin SJ) assessed damages in a representative claim brought by 85 individuals who had deposited digital tokens and monies with an online trading platform operated by the defendant. Liability had already been determined in earlier proceedings: the court found that the defendant breached both a User Agreement and a separate Buyback Contract by failing to allow users access to their stored assets and by failing to purchase/redeem WEX tokens within the contractual timeframe.
The present decision focuses on quantification. The court had to determine (i) the quantity of tokens and monies held by each claimant as at 12 July 2018 (the relevant cut-off date identified in the pleadings and liability findings), (ii) the appropriate valuation date for losses, and (iii) the value of the relevant tokens/monies on that valuation date. The court accepted the claimants’ evidence of quantities despite the defendant’s expert challenge to the authenticity and reliability of screenshots, and it rejected arguments that the assessment should be diverted into unrelated matters concerning other platforms or victim compensation schemes.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The claimants were 85 individuals who owned digital tokens and monies that were “stored” with the defendant. They were represented by Alexandru Kalen, a Romanian citizen. Although 86 individuals initially commenced the proceedings, one claimant (Andrei Vasilevich Podogov) settled with the defendant and withdrew, leaving 85 claimants for the assessment stage.
The defendant, World Exchange Services Pte. Ltd., is a Singapore-incorporated company. The claimants alleged that it operated an online trading platform for digital tokens, including cryptocurrencies, known as wex.nz (“WEX”). Each claimant maintained an account on the WEX platform and entered into a User Agreement with the defendant. The User Agreement described WEX as a facilitator and payment processing service rather than a bank, and it contained provisions addressing how user funds were held and the nature of WEX’s relationship to users (including that WEX was not acting as a trustee, fiduciary, or escrow, but as an agent and custodian).
In addition to the User Agreement, the defendant published statements in September and October 2017 that formed part of a further contractual arrangement with users. Under this arrangement, the defendant undertook a “Buyback Contract” obligation: within two years, it would purchase or redeem the WEX tokens it had issued to users in exchange for digital tokens or fiat currency monies deposited by users, at a consideration equivalent to the digital token or fiat currency monies which the WEX tokens represented.
The claimants’ pleaded case was that the defendant breached the User Agreement from about 12 July 2018 onwards by causing users to be unable to control, transfer, or withdraw their digital tokens and monies stored in their WEX accounts. The claimants further alleged that the WEX platform became inaccessible: it was not accessible at the URL “https://wex.nz/” around November 2018, and by around December 2018 it was entirely inaccessible from any URL. Separately, the claimants alleged that the defendant also breached the Buyback Contract by failing to purchase WEX tokens as required.
Proceedings were commenced on 13 September 2023. In the liability phase, the claimants applied for summary judgment. Assistant Registrar Rajaram Vikram Raja entered interlocutory judgment against the defendant for breach of both the User Agreement and Buyback Agreement. On appeal, Justice Dedar Singh Gill upheld the interlocutory judgment. Importantly for the assessment stage, the liability court found that the claimants had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that they maintained accounts, that the defendant made a unilateral offer to purchase tokens under the Buyback Contract, and that the defendant breached both agreements by failing to allow access to stored assets and failing to purchase WEX tokens. The liability court left damages to be assessed because the claimants had not shown a prima facie case for the specific quantum of damages pleaded.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
At the assessment stage, the court identified three principal issues. First, the “Quantity Issue” required the court to determine the quantity of digital tokens and monies held in the claimants’ user accounts as at 12 July 2018. This required evaluation of documentary evidence (notably screenshots of account balances) and expert evidence challenging or supporting the reliability of that documentation.
Second, the “Valuation Date Issue” required the court to decide what date should be used to value the claimants’ losses. In token and cryptocurrency disputes, the valuation date can materially affect damages because token prices fluctuate rapidly. The court therefore had to select a valuation date consistent with contract principles and the causation and measure-of-damages framework applicable to the breaches found.
Third, the “Valuation Issue” required the court to determine the value of the relevant tokens and monies at the chosen valuation date. This involved determining the appropriate pricing sources and conversion approach for digital assets and fiat monies, and ensuring that the valuation method matched the nature of the contractual obligation breached.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by addressing the defendant’s attempt to re-open matters that had already been decided at the liability stage. The defendant argued that the court should investigate the relationship between BTC-e (a platform shut down by US authorities for criminal activities) and WEX, and that claimants should have recourse to a victim compensation fund being distributed following Russian criminal proceedings against BTC-e’s founders. The court treated these arguments as irrelevant for the assessment because the defendant had already been found liable for breach of the User Agreement and Buyback Agreement in summary judgment, and those liability findings were binding for present purposes.
Turning to the Quantity Issue, the claimants relied on screenshots of their WEX user accounts on various dates to establish the quantity of digital tokens and monies they owned on the platform. They also provided statements confirming that the screenshots had not been altered or edited and that, to their knowledge, there had been no unauthorised transactions in their accounts after the screenshots were taken. This evidence was intended to show what assets were held as at the relevant cut-off date.
The defendant countered with expert evidence from Mr Aleksandr Podobnykh, who suggested that the screenshots lacked credibility. The expert adopted three approaches to assess authenticity and reliability. Under the first approach, he classified screenshots into “green” and “orange” groups based on whether they captured the entire screen and contained complete information (including the web address of the user account, username, balances, server date and time, system date and time, and other account information). Under the second approach, he classified screenshots based on the nature of the assets shown—placing claimants with minor cryptocurrencies and tokens into the “green” group and those with main cryptocurrencies and high potential for trading activities into the “orange” group. Under the third approach, he classified screenshots based on the claimants’ ability to dispose of cryptocurrencies, grouping those with screenshots dated before 12 July 2018 as “green” and the rest as “orange”.
The court’s reasoning on the evidential burden is significant. It held that by providing the screenshots and accompanying statements, the claimants discharged their evidentiary burden of proving the quantity of their digital tokens and monies. Once that evidential burden was met, the burden shifted to the defendant to rebut the claimants’ evidence. The court emphasised the expert’s own limitations: critically, Mr Podobnykh concluded that it was “impossible to establish whether [the screenshots] were subject to editing or other modification” and that the screenshots did not allow the expert to establish that the claimants did not withdraw funds from their personal accounts after the dates indicated in the screenshots.
In other words, the court treated the defendant’s expert evidence as failing to positively rebut the claimants’ evidence. The expert’s inability to prove editing or unauthorised transactions meant that, even if the expert’s analysis was taken at its highest, it could not establish alterations or transactions inconsistent with the claimants’ account balance evidence. The court also criticised the expert’s assumptions about the possibility of transacting on the WEX platform after 12 July 2018. The expert’s only support for that assumption was inadmissible hearsay about a client who allegedly managed to withdraw assets after losing access. The court therefore did not accept that the expert’s approach undermined the claimants’ proof of quantities as at the relevant date.
Although the extract provided truncates the remainder of the judgment, the structure indicates that the court proceeded from the Quantity Issue to address the Valuation Date Issue and then the Valuation Issue. The decision would necessarily apply contract damages principles to select a valuation date that reflects the loss caused by the defendant’s breaches and avoids speculative or opportunistic valuation. In token cases, courts typically seek a principled date linked to the breach and the point at which the claimant’s ability to access or realise assets was lost. The court’s approach to evidence in the Quantity Issue suggests a similar insistence on reliable, causally connected valuation evidence rather than conjecture.
What Was the Outcome?
The court accepted the claimants’ evidence on the Quantity Issue and held that the defendant did not rebut that evidence with credible proof of editing or unauthorised transactions. This finding was foundational to the damages assessment because it determined the base holdings of tokens and monies to be valued.
On the remaining issues—valuation date and valuation—the court would have applied the appropriate measure of damages for contractual breaches and selected a valuation framework consistent with the breaches found in the liability proceedings. The practical effect is that the claimants’ damages were quantified by reference to the tokens/monies held as at 12 July 2018 and valued using the court’s chosen valuation date and pricing methodology.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is important for practitioners dealing with damages assessment in digital asset disputes, particularly where liability has been determined and the dispute narrows to quantification. The court’s treatment of screenshot evidence and expert challenges provides a useful evidential roadmap. It confirms that claimants can discharge an evidential burden with contemporaneous account records and sworn or affirmed statements, and that expert evidence that cannot positively establish editing or inconsistent transactions may be insufficient to rebut that evidence.
From a contract remedies perspective, the case also underscores that valuation in token disputes must be approached through principled selection of a valuation date and reliable valuation evidence. Token prices are volatile, and damages can vary dramatically depending on the chosen date. The court’s structured approach—separating quantity, valuation date, and valuation—reflects a disciplined method that lawyers can adopt when preparing assessment submissions, expert reports, and documentary bundles.
Finally, the case demonstrates the limits of re-litigating issues at the assessment stage. The defendant’s attempt to divert the proceedings into matters concerning other platforms and external compensation schemes was rejected as irrelevant given the binding liability findings. This is a useful reminder that assessment is not a second liability trial; parties must focus on the quantification questions that remain open after liability has been determined.
Legislation Referenced
- (Not specified in the provided judgment extract.)
Cases Cited
- [2001] SGHC 28
- [2010] SGCA 12
- [2024] SGHC 173
- [2025] SGCA 51
- [2026] SGHC 31
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGHC 31 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.