Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGHC 31
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2026-02-09
- Judges: Lee Seiu Kin SJ
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Kalen, Alexandru
- Defendant/Respondent: World Exchange Services Pte Ltd
- Legal Areas: Damages – Assessment; Contract – Remedies
- Statutes Referenced: None specified
- Cases Cited: [2001] SGHC 28, [2010] SGCA 12, [2024] SGHC 173, [2025] SGCA 51, [2026] SGHC 31
- Judgment Length: 26 pages, 6,592 words
Summary
This case involves a representative claim brought by 85 individuals against World Exchange Services Pte Ltd ("the Defendant") for breach of a user agreement and a buyback agreement related to a digital token trading platform called WEX. The Defendant was found liable for these breaches in earlier summary judgment proceedings. The present judgment addresses the assessment of damages owed to the Claimants.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The Claimants are 85 individuals who maintained accounts on the WEX digital token trading platform operated by the Defendant, a Singapore-incorporated company. Each Claimant entered into a user agreement with the Defendant, which provided that the Defendant would hold the Claimants' funds separately from its own corporate funds and would not use the funds for its own purposes.
In addition to the user agreement, the Defendant had also entered into a "buyback contract" with all WEX platform users, obligating the Defendant to purchase or redeem the WEX tokens it had issued to users within two years, at a consideration equivalent to the digital tokens or fiat currency the WEX tokens represented.
The Claimants allege that the Defendant breached both the user agreement and the buyback contract by preventing them from accessing or withdrawing their digital tokens and monies stored on the WEX platform since 12 July 2018. The WEX platform also became inaccessible at its main URL by around November 2018 and was entirely inaccessible by December 2018.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key issues for the court to decide in the assessment of damages were:
(a) What is the quantity of digital tokens and monies that were held in the Claimants' user accounts as of 12 July 2018 ("Quantity Issue");
(b) What is the appropriate date of valuation for the Claimants' losses ("Valuation Date Issue"); and
(c) What is the value of the said tokens and monies at the date of valuation ("Valuation Issue").
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the Quantity Issue, the court found that the Claimants had discharged their evidentiary burden by providing screenshots of their user account balances and statements confirming the authenticity of the screenshots. The burden then shifted to the Defendant to rebut this evidence, but the Defendant's expert witness, Mr. Podobnykh, was unable to conclusively establish that the screenshots had been altered or that the Claimants had made unauthorized transactions after the screenshots were taken.
On the Valuation Date Issue, the court examined the relevant legal principles. It noted that the general rule is that damages should be assessed at the date of breach, but that there are exceptions where a different valuation date may be more appropriate, such as where the value of the asset has fluctuated significantly between the date of breach and the date of trial. The court found that the present case fell within this exception, as the value of digital tokens and cryptocurrencies can be highly volatile.
Applying these principles, the court held that the appropriate valuation date was 12 July 2018, the date the Claimants were first prevented from accessing their accounts. This was the date closest to the breach and when the Claimants' losses crystallized.
On the Valuation Issue, the court acknowledged the difficulty in determining the precise value of the digital tokens and monies held by the Claimants, given the volatility of cryptocurrency markets. However, the court found that the Claimants' evidence, including the screenshots and expert testimony, provided a reasonable basis to assess the value as of 12 July 2018.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered the Defendant to pay damages to the Claimants based on the quantity of digital tokens and monies held in their accounts as of 12 July 2018, valued at the market rates prevailing on that date. The specific quantum of damages was to be determined based on the evidence provided by the parties.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons:
First, it provides guidance on the assessment of damages in cases involving the loss of digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies and digital tokens. The court's analysis of the appropriate valuation date and methodology for determining the value of such assets at the time of breach is likely to be influential in future cases.
Second, the case highlights the importance of maintaining clear and comprehensive records of digital asset holdings, as well as the need for platforms holding user funds to have robust security and withdrawal mechanisms in place. The court's willingness to accept the Claimants' screenshots as evidence, despite the Defendant's challenges, underscores this point.
Finally, the case serves as a reminder to digital asset service providers of the legal obligations they owe to their users, both in terms of safeguarding user funds and fulfilling any contractual commitments, such as token buyback agreements. Failure to do so can result in significant liability for damages.
Legislation Referenced
- None specified
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.