Enjin Pte Ltd v Pritchard Lilia: Marital Privilege, Oral Agreements & Cryptocurrency

In Enjin Pte Ltd v Pritchard Lilia, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a case regarding a dispute over the entitlement of monies and digital tokens. Enjin Pte Ltd, the plaintiff, sued Ms. Pritchard, the defendant, for the recovery of S$209,304.86, S$9,337, and S$7,7624.64, as well as claims for breach of confidence and wrongful acts. Ms. Pritchard responded with a counterclaim for 2.5m ENJ. The court dismissed Ms. Pritchard’s counterclaim and allowed Enjin’s claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case between Enjin Pte Ltd and Pritchard Lilia involving disputes over oral agreements, marital privilege, and cryptocurrency transfers. Judgment for Plaintiff.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Enjin Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim AllowedWon
Pritchard LiliaDefendantIndividualCounterclaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Philip JeyaretnamJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash RaiDrew & Napier LLC
Yong Wei Jun JonathanDrew & Napier LLC
Melissa Ng Li LingDrew & Napier LLC
Ng Chee WeiDrew & Napier LLC
Kenneth (Huang Zhiwei)Drew & Napier LLC
Lok Vi Ming SCLVM Law Chambers LLC
Tan Lena (Chen Lina)Gloria James-Civetta & Co
Chong Xin YiGloria James-Civetta & Co
Qabir SandhuLVM Law Chambers LLC

4. Facts

  1. Ms. Pritchard was the CFO of Enjin before she resigned on 22 April 2020.
  2. Ms. Pritchard was married to Mr. Blagov from 2004 until they divorced in 2019.
  3. In 2017, Enjin changed its strategy to focus on blockchain technology and issued ENJ Coin.
  4. Around 6m ENJ was set aside for Ms Pritchard around the time of the ICO.
  5. In March 2019, 3m ENJ was paid to Ms Pritchard in the form of USD$300,000.
  6. On 22 and 23 April 2020, Ms Pritchard carried out several unauthorized transactions from Enjin’s accounts.
  7. Enjin commenced a suit seeking recovery of S$209,304.86, S$9,337, and S$7,7624.64.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Enjin Pte Ltd v Pritchard Lilia, Suit No 860 of 2020, [2022] SGHC 201

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr Blagov and Mr Radomski started a business known as “Surreal Media”.
Ms Pritchard and Mr Blagov married.
Mr Blagov and Mr Radomski incorporated “Enjin Pty Ltd” in Australia.
Enjin was incorporated in Singapore.
Enjin changed strategy and focused on developing a proprietary blockchain technology.
Enjin began issuing a digital token called “ENJ Coin”.
Enjin created 1bn ENJ and sold around 700m ENJ to the public to raise capital through an Initial Coin Offering.
Around 6m ENJ was set aside for Ms Pritchard.
Ms Pritchard was formally appointed COO of Enjin.
3m ENJ was paid to Ms Pritchard in the form of USD$300,000.
Ms Pritchard was given the role of CFO of Enjin.
Ms Pritchard was replaced as COO by Mr Caleb Applegate.
Divorce proceedings commenced between Ms Pritchard and Mr Blagov.
Final judgment was granted for the divorce between Ms Pritchard and Mr Blagov.
Ms Pritchard entered a serious relationship with a new partner.
Ms Pritchard informed Mr Blagov and Mr Radomski that she was still waiting for her payment of 3m ENJ.
Ms Pritchard was awarded 500,000 ENJ.
Ms Pritchard told Mr Blagov and Mr Radomski that she wanted the remaining 2.5m ENJ to be paid in either cash or Bitcoin.
Mr Blagov told Ms Pritchard that the tokens needed to be in the director’s possession.
Ms Pritchard replied that the discussion was “straight forward” – just send her 2.5m ENJ.
Ms Pritchard sent a letter of resignation to the Enjin team.
Ms Pritchard purchased two laptops and two headphones on Amazon Singapore using Enjin’s TransferWise corporate debit card.
Ms Pritchard executed a transfer of 42,000 ENJ and 3.3 Ethereum tokens from Enjin’s virtual wallet to her personal virtual wallet.
Ms Pritchard made two transfers of S$50,000 and S$357,000 from Enjin’s corporate account with SCB to a joint account that she held with Mr Blagov.
Ms Pritchard transferred a total of S$209,304.86 from the Joint Account to her personal bank accounts.
Enjin commenced this suit.
The District Court granted a proprietary injunction restraining Ms Pritchard from disposing of the balance monies transferred by her to herself, namely S$197,672, and from disposing of the 42,000 ENJ and 3.3 ETH transferred by her from Enjin’s virtual wallet to her personal wallet.
The proceedings were transferred to the High Court.
Mavis Chionh J granted a sealing order and an order that the trial take place in camera.
Ms Pritchard was found to have committed contempt and was fined.
Trial began.
Judgment reserved.
Enjin renewed the application for anonymisation and redaction of the judgment.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no enforceable oral contract for the payment of 6m ENJ to Ms Pritchard.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Oral Agreement
      • Consideration
      • Intention to create legal relations
      • Certainty of terms
  2. Marital Communications Privilege
    • Outcome: The court held that communications between spouses only fall within Section 124 EA if they were made between them in their capacity as spouses as principals.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Unjust Enrichment
    • Outcome: The court found that Ms Pritchard was unjustly enriched by the unauthorized transfers from Enjin's accounts.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Employee Duties
    • Outcome: The court found that Ms Pritchard breached her duties as an employee by making unauthorized purchases.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Duty of good faith
      • Duty of fidelity

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Recovery of Assets

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Unjust Enrichment
  • Breach of Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Contract Disputes
  • Technology Law
  • Cryptocurrency Disputes

11. Industries

  • Technology
  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Rumping v Director of Public ProsecutionsHouse of LordsYes[1964] AC 814England and WalesCited to explain the historical context of marital privilege and the Evidence Amendment Act 1853.
Lim Lye Hock v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 649SingaporeCited to explain the effect of Section 124 of the Evidence Act and the prohibition against disclosing marital communications.
EQ Capital Investments Ltd v Sunbreeze Group Investments Ltd and othersSingapore High CourtYes[2017] SGHCR 15SingaporeCited for its analysis of Section 124 of the Evidence Act and the scope of marital communications privilege.
BOK v BOL and anotherHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 316SingaporeCited to illustrate the discretionary nature of redacting or anonymising a judgment even when proceedings were held in camera.
Chua Yi Jin Colin v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 290SingaporeCited for the principle that any departure from open justice is only justified to the extent necessary to serve the ends of justice.
Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd and othersHouse of LordsYes[1979] 2 WLR 247England and WalesCited for the principle that any departure from open justice is only justified to the extent necessary to serve the ends of justice.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 850SingaporeCited for the principle that when interpreting a statute, the first step is to ascertain the possible interpretations of the provision.
AAG v Estate of AAH, deceasedCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 769SingaporeCited for the principle that a statutory provision should be construed in a manner that takes into account new situations that may arise.
Day, Ashley Francis v Yeo Chin Huat Anthony and othersSingapore High CourtYes[2020] 5 SLR 514SingaporeCited regarding the need to prove the point in time when a contract was made.
Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 332SingaporeCited for the requirements of consideration and intention to create legal relations in contract formation.
Ang Sin Hock v Khoo Eng LimCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 179SingaporeCited to illustrate the concept of waiver by election.
Piattchanine, Iouri v Phosagro Asia Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 1257SingaporeCited for the duty of good faith and fidelity as an employee.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act 1893Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • ENJ Coin
  • Initial Coin Offering
  • Marital Communications Privilege
  • Blockchain
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Vesting
  • Oral Agreement
  • ENJ allocation spreadsheet

15.2 Keywords

  • contract
  • marital privilege
  • cryptocurrency
  • blockchain
  • Enjin
  • oral agreement
  • bonus
  • employment

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law75
Marital Privilege60
Evidence Law50
Civil Procedure40
Breach of Duty25
Company Law20
Fiduciary Duties15

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Evidence
  • Civil Procedure
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Blockchain Technology
  • Privilege