DRH v DRI

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGCA 26 consider?

The judgment refers to Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGCA 26 Court of Appeal 13 May 2026 • CA/CA 5/2026 ( CA/SUM 9/2026,CA/SUM 7/2026,CA/SUM 5/2026 ) • 14 min read

6 cases cited (5 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	13 May 2026
Judges	Ang Cheng Hock, Steven Chong, Sundaresh Menon
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP, K&L Gates Straits Law LLC, Providence Law Asia LLC, Colin Liew, Eva Teh Jing Hui, Joan Peiyun Lim-Casanova, Pan Xingzheng Edric, Sim Zhi Quan Sean, Tan Jun Hua Kenneth, Too Tat Rui, V Santhosh

Source: [2026] SGCA 26, Court of Appeal, decided 13 May 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 2 June 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Permission Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Sealing orders Civil Procedure — Striking out — Company’s application to strike out notice of appeal filed

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (3)

Ang Cheng Hock Coram Steven Chong Coram Sundaresh Menon Delivered

Counsel (11)

Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Firm K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Firm Providence Law Asia LLC Firm Colin Liew Counsel Appellant Eva Teh Jing Hui Counsel Respondent Joan Peiyun Lim-Casanova Counsel Respondent Pan Xingzheng Edric Counsel Appellant Sim Zhi Quan Sean Counsel Appellant Tan Jun Hua Kenneth Counsel Respondent Too Tat Rui Counsel Respondent V Santhosh Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

DRH Appellant DRI Respondent

Case Significance

DRH v DRI [2026] SGCA 26, decided by the Court of Appeal on 13 May 2026 with Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon delivering the judgment (sitting with Steven Chong JCA and Ang Cheng Hock JCA), resolved three interlocutory applications filed in connection with CA/CA 5/2026, an appeal against a High Court decision of 2 February 2026 in HC/OA 1271/2025 and HC/SUM 3512/2025. The parties are engaged in an ongoing arbitration arising from a token merger agreement under which DRI, DRH, and a third party agreed to merge their respective cryptocurrency tokens. Emergency arbitral relief applications were filed by both sides from August 2025 onwards. The three summonses before the Court of Appeal concerned DRI's application to strike out DRH's notice of appeal, questions of whether permission to appeal was required, and applications for sealing orders. DRH was represented by Colin Liew, Pan Xingzheng Edric, Sim Zhi Quan Sean, and V Santhosh from Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP and Providence Law Asia LLC; DRI by Eva Teh Jing Hui, Joan Peiyun Lim-Casanova, Tan Jun Hua Kenneth, and Too Tat Rui from K&L Gates Straits Law LLC.

[2026] SGCA 26 explained

DRH v DRI ([2026] SGCA 26) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 13 May 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] SGCA 26 about?

DRH v DRI ([2026] SGCA 26) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Appeals — Permission”, “Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Sealing orders”, and “Civil Procedure — Striking out — Company’s application to strike out notice of appeal filed”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGCA 26 consider?

The judgment refers to Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

DRH and DRI were parties to an ongoing arbitration over a token merger agreement involving cryptocurrency tokens, with DRH appealing against a High Court order refusing to seal court files and requiring proceedings to be heard in open court. The Court of Appeal dismissed DRI's application to strike out DRH's notice of appeal (SUM 5), holding that the confidentiality order was a final order not requiring permission to appeal, and separately granted DRH's application to seal the Court of Appeal file pending determination of the appeal (SUM 7), ordering costs of $6,500 against DRI.

What were the three applications decided by the Court of Appeal in DRH v DRI [2026] SGCA 26?

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon resolved three summonses: DRI's application to strike out DRH's notice of appeal in CA/CA 5/2026, the question of whether permission to appeal was required, and applications for sealing orders. The underlying dispute involved a token merger agreement for cryptocurrency tokens and ongoing arbitration proceedings begun in August 2025.

How did the cryptocurrency token merger dispute between DRH and DRI reach Singapore's Court of Appeal ([2026] SGCA 26)?

DRH and DRI entered a token merger agreement to combine their respective cryptocurrency tokens. From August 2025 each party filed emergency arbitral relief applications. DRH then appealed the High Court's 2 February 2026 decision in OA 1271/2025, and the Court of Appeal in [2026] SGCA 26 on 13 May 2026 dealt with preliminary applications including a strike-out attempt and sealing order requests.