XSQ v LLD

XSQ v LLD

Claim discontinued because claimant failed to establish a specified claim under s 5(1)(a) SCTA: she conceded she did not purchase TerraUSD from respondent (so no sale contract) and, even if purchased, cryptocurrencies are not "goods" under s 61(1) SOGA as they are intangible property classified as choses in action; alternatively the transaction was a deposit (debt) not a contract for services, so SCT lacked jurisdiction.

Citation
[2026] SGSCT 1
Parties
Claimant: XSQ; Respondent: LLD
Court
Small Claims Tribunals
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
7 April 2026
Case Number
SCT/13773/2022
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunals Claim / Consultation; Claim Discontinued Pursuant to S 17(3) Small Claims Tribunals Act
Outcome
Claim discontinued pursuant to s 17(3) of the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed); no decision on merits; claimant free to pursue claim in appropriate forum.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Small Claims Tribunals, Definition of Goods Under Sale of Goods Act, Cryptocurrency as Property, Choses in Action Vs Things in Possession, Contracts for Services Vs Deposits
Source Language
English
Tribunal Jurisdiction Contract Sale of Goods Property Law Cryptocurrency Jurisdiction of Small Claims Tribunals Definition of Goods Under Sale of Goods Act Cryptocurrency as Property +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XSQ

Claimant

LLD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunals Claim / Consultation; Claim Discontinued Pursuant to S 17(3) Small Claims Tribunals Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Small Claims Tribunals had jurisdiction to hear a claim premised on a contract for the sale of cryptocurrency
  2. 2 Whether cryptocurrency (TerraUSD) constitutes "goods" under s 61(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
  3. 3 Whether the claimant purchased TerraUSD from the respondent or only deposited it (i.e., whether there was a sale)

Ratio Decidendi

Claim discontinued because claimant failed to establish a specified claim under s 5(1)(a) SCTA: she conceded she did not purchase TerraUSD from respondent (so no sale contract) and, even if purchased, cryptocurrencies are not "goods" under s 61(1) SOGA as they are intangible property classified as choses in action; alternatively the transaction was a deposit (debt) not a contract for services, so SCT lacked jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Claim discontinued pursuant to s 17(3) of the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed); no decision on merits; claimant free to pursue claim in appropriate forum.

Orders

  • No decision on the merits; claimant free to pursue claim in the appropriate forum