In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Kalen, Alexandru v World Exchange Services Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 31</span>, the Singapore High Court has provided important guidance on the appropriate date for valuing cryptocurrency losses in breach of contract claims. Rejecting both a strict breach-date valuation and a trial-date valuation, the Court held that the relevant valuation date is determined by the doctrine of mitigation, specifically, the point at which the claimant could reasonably have been expected to take steps to reduce its loss. The decision has significant implications for digital asset litigation across common law jurisdictions.
In disputes involving volatile assets, the question of when to value a loss can be just as consequential as the question of liability itself. In highly volatile markets and cryptocurrency markets in particular, the difference between valuing a claim at the date of breach, shortly thereafter, or at the date of trial can dramatically alter the quantum of damages recoverable. Price swings in digital asset markets can be extreme, trading is continuous and the rigid application of conventional damages rules does not always sit comfortably with the realities of digital asset trading.
Common law jurisdictions generally recognise the “breach date rule” as the default starting point: damages for breach of contract are ordinarily assessed as at the date of breach, on the assumption that the innocent party would enter the market to obtain substitute performance. That rule, however, has never been absolute. Where its application would produce injustice, courts retain the discretion to adopt a different valuation date. The real question is not whether departure is permissible, but what principle should govern it. The Singapore High Court's decision in Kalen provides authoritative guidance on precisely this issue.
The claimants were 85 individuals who held digital tokens and monies in accounts on the WEX online trading platform, operated by the defendant, World Exchange Services Pte Ltd. Each claimant had entered into a User Agreement with the defendant. In addition, the defendant had entered into a separate buyback arrangement under which it was obliged, within two years, to purchase or redeem WEX tokens issued to users at a value equivalent to the digital tokens or fiat currency those tokens represented.
From 12 July 2018, the claimants found themselves unable to control, transfer or withdraw their digital assets. Access to the platform deteriorated further from around November 2018 and by December 2018 the platform had become entirely inaccessible. The claimants commenced proceedings in September 2023 and summary judgment was entered against the defendant for breach of both the User Agreement and the buyback arrangement.
The critical issue so far as damages were concerned was the appropriate date for valuing the claimants’ losses. The commercial significance of this question was stark: the aggregate value of the claimants’ assets stood at approximately US$ 10.68 million on 12 July 2018, reached a high of US$ 11.97 million within the following three months, fell to US$ 7.73 million on 1 December 2018 and had climbed to US$ 46.30 million by 1 June 2025, with an all-time high of US$ 63.28 million recorded after the date of breach.
The Court began by reaffirming the breach date rule as the conventional starting point, whilst acknowledging that it may be displaced where its application would produce injustice. It then articulated a more fundamental principle that the valuation-date inquiry is closely bound up with the doctrine of mitigation. The proper date is the point at which the claimant could reasonably have been expected to take steps to reduce its loss, a question that depends on when the claimant knew of the breach, whether substitute performance was available and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances to expect mitigating action to be taken.
In developing this principle, the Court drew on both Singapore and English authority. It referred to <span class="news-text_italic-underline">iVenture Card Ltd v Big Bus Singapore [2022] 1 SLR 302</span> and the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">POP Holdings Pte Ltd v Teo Ban Lim [2025] SGCA 51</span>, both of which underline the connection between the breach date rule and the law of mitigation. The Court also considered the UK Supreme Court's decision in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Stanford International Bank Ltd v HSBC Bank plc [2023] AC 761</span>, in which Lord Leggatt framed the valuation question as a matter of mitigation rather than as one governed by any rigid default date. Further reference was made to <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Southgate v Graham [2024] EWHC 1692 (Ch)</span>, the leading recent English decision on cryptocurrency valuation, in which Trower J held that the valuation date depends on whether there is an available market and that the injured party should ordinarily enter that market to crystallise its loss.
The Court also considered, and rejected, the so-called “New York Rule”, derived from the United States decision in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Diamond Fortress Technologies Inc v EverID Inc 274 A.3d 287 (2022)</span>, under which damages are assessed by reference to the highest intermediate value of the asset between the date of breach and a reasonable time thereafter. Whilst acknowledging that this approach reflects the concept of a reasonable replacement period, the Court held that selecting the highest intermediate value bears no principled relationship to the possibility or reasonableness of mitigation and risks conferring on claimants the benefit of perfect hindsight and an undeserved windfall.
Applying its mitigation-based framework, the Court rejected both of the extreme positions advanced by the parties. It declined to adopt the defendant's preferred date of 12 July 2018, finding that it was not reasonable to expect the claimants to mitigate on the very day they first lost access, particularly given that the WEX administrators had described the problem as technical and indicated that service would resume. Equally, it declined to adopt the claimants' preferred date of trial, which would have given them the benefit of years of asset appreciation without any corresponding obligation to take mitigating steps.
Instead, the Court held that the appropriate valuation point was a reasonable time after 12 July 2018, namely around October or November 2018. By that stage, rumours of the possible closure of the WEX exchange had begun to circulate and the platform could only be accessed through alternative URLs before becoming entirely inaccessible by around December 2018. It was at that point, the Court found, that the claimants could reasonably have been expected to begin mitigating their losses.
The Court also clarified the scope of the duty to mitigate. It rejected the suggestion that the claimants could only discharge that duty by purchasing exact replacement tokens immediately. The duty to mitigate requires an innocent party to take all reasonable steps to reduce its loss, so far as those steps are not unduly difficult. On the facts, that could have included making formal demands for the return of assets, commencing legal proceedings, or purchasing at least some substitute digital tokens on other exchanges, particularly given the fall in prices between July and December 2018. The Court further rejected the argument that the defendant's continuing breach justified present-day valuation and was not persuaded that the claimants' asserted lack of funds to repurchase digital assets extinguished the duty to mitigate altogether.
As the claimants had not provided precise valuation figures for the relevant period, the Court adopted a practical proxy, averaging the value on 12 July 2018, the highest value within the following three months and the value on 1 December 2018. On that basis, damages were assessed at approximately US$ 10,126,158.43.
The importance of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Kalen</span> lies in the framework it establishes. The judgment makes clear that, in cryptocurrency disputes, the valuation date exercise is neither a free-floating discretion to select the most favourable date, nor a mechanical application of the breach date rule. It articulates a principled approach: a claimant has a duty to take reasonable steps to minimise its loss, rather than allowing losses to accumulate whilst awaiting a favourable market movement at trial.
The decision also highlights a growing convergence between Singapore and English law on this issue. In both jurisdictions, the analysis turns on the practical question of when the claimant could reasonably have been expected to enter the market or otherwise act to reduce its loss, rather than on any abstract preference for a particular valuation date. By contrast, the US position remains materially different, with the New York Rule potentially permitting recovery based on the highest intermediate value within a reasonable replacement period. In crypto disputes, where damages can fluctuate by tens of millions of dollars depending on the methodology adopted, questions of governing law, forum selection and remedial strategy may therefore materially affect quantum.
Looking ahead, parties will need to focus not only about establishing breach and tracing assets, but also about building a detailed factual record on mitigation: when did the claimant first appreciate that the problem was genuine and not merely temporary? What steps could reasonably have been taken at that stage? Were substitute assets available on other exchanges? Could formal demands or protective proceedings have been pursued sooner? These questions are likely to feature prominently in future digital asset damages hearings.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Kalen, Alexandru v World Exchange Services Pte Ltd</span> [2026] SGHC 31 (Singapore High Court)
