DUP v DUQ
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Wong Li Kok, Alex |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | CHP Law LLC, Eugene Thuraisingam Asia LLC, Ang Ann Liang, Ng Clare Sophia, Tan Youliang |
Source: [2026] SGHC 172, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
DUP v DUQ [2026] SGHC 172 was decided by Wong Li Kok, Alex J in the General Division of the High Court on 26 August 2026 (Originating Application No 194 of 2026, Summons No 891 of 2026). DUP, a British Virgin Islands crypto neobank, obtained a proprietary injunction on 16 February 2026 over 20,000,000 Tokens and 500,000 USDT transferred on 2 May 2025 to its former Chief Strategy Officer, DUQ, who said they were her compensation. The issues were jurisdiction under s 12A of the International Arbitration Act 1994, whether the injunction should be set aside, and fortification of the undertaking as to damages. The court set aside the worldwide freezing order, maintained the injunction and ordered notional fortification of US$125,000.
[2026] SGHC 172 explained
DUP v DUQ ([2026] SGHC 172) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 26 August 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] SGHC 172 about?
DUP v DUQ ([2026] SGHC 172) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Mareva injunctions — Real risk of dissipation”, “Civil Procedure — Proprietary injunction — Balance of convenience”, and “Civil Procedure — Proprietary injunction — Fortification of damages”, 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 172 consider?
The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 10). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 172 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 257 and [2025] SGHC 95. 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 DUQ, a former Chief Strategy Officer of DUP, a British Virgin Islands crypto neobank, to set aside a proprietary injunction over 20,000,000 Tokens and 500,000 USDT. The court set aside the worldwide freezing order but held that the proprietary injunction should be maintained, finding a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo. It dismissed the application and ordered notional fortification of US$125,000 within three weeks.
Why was the proprietary injunction maintained in [2026] SGHC 172?
The court found a serious question to be tried and that damages were not an adequate remedy for the claimant over the Disputed Coins. The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo pending the determination of the claim.
How much notional fortification was ordered in DUP v DUQ [2026] SGHC 172?
The court ordered notional fortification of the undertaking as to damages in the amount of US$125,000, to be paid into court within three weeks, failing which the proprietary injunction would be discharged.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (12)
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 172)