MIRROR TRADING INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) & 7 Ors
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Aidan Xu |
| Charges / claim | Insolvency Law |
| Counsel | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Jung Sangbum, Ng Hui Ping Sheila |
Source: [2026] SGHC 146, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (3)
Parties (8)
Case Significance
Re Mirror Trading International (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2026] SGHC 146 was decided by Aidan Xu J in the General Division of the High Court on 15 July 2026, after a hearing on 29 June 2026. The liquidators of Mirror Trading International (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation), a South African cryptocurrency trading company found by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority to have operated a Ponzi-like scheme, sought recognition of the South African liquidation under the Model Law in the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. Potential avoidance claims against 29 Singapore defendants amounted to about S$22 million. The court held that the liquidation was a foreign proceeding and that the centre of main interests was South Africa. It recognised a foreign main proceeding, applied the automatic stay under Article 20(1), granted relief under Article 21, and conferred standing under Article 23(1).
[2026] SGHC 146 explained
MIRROR TRADING INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) & 7 Ors ([2026] SGHC 146) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 15 July 2026. It is categorised under Insolvency Law. 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 146 about?
MIRROR TRADING INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) & 7 Ors ([2026] SGHC 146) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Insolvency Law — Cross-border insolvency — Recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings”, 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 146 consider?
The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50), Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, and Restructuring and Dissolution Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 146 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 155. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard an application by the liquidators of Mirror Trading International (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation), a South African cryptocurrency trading company, for recognition of its South African liquidation under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency as adopted in the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. The court found that the liquidation was a foreign proceeding and that South Africa was the centre of main interests. It recognised the liquidation as a foreign main proceeding, granted relief under Articles 20 and 21, and gave the liquidators standing for avoidance actions under Article 23(1).
What was Re Mirror Trading International [2026] SGHC 146 about?
It was an application by the liquidators of Mirror Trading International (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) for recognition in Singapore of the South African liquidation under the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, together with reliefs and standing for avoidance actions.
Why was South Africa the centre of main interests in [2026] SGHC 146?
The registered office was in South Africa and nothing rebutted that presumption. Bank accounts were with South African banks, shareholders, directors and employees were South African, and the investment agreement was governed by South African law.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (4)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 146)