Federal Court of Australia

Ripple Markets APAC Pte Ltd v EzyRemit Worldwide Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1551

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Pursuant to s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), the applicant have leave to have the award in Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Arbitration no. 479 of 2024 (consolidated by the SIAC Court of Arbitration with SIAC Arbitration no. 480 of 2024) dated 22 August 2025 and published and notified to the parties by Gavin Margetson, Sole Arbitrator, enforced as if it were a judgment of the Court.

2.    Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant against the respondents, EzyRemit Worldwide Pty Ltd and Van Thanh Nguyen, jointly and severally for:

(a)    compensatory damages in the sum of AUD700,000.00;

(b)    interest on the sum set out at paragraph 2(a) above at a rate of 2% per month compounded daily from 8 January 2024 until the date the judgment is paid;

(c)    arbitration costs in the sum of AUD36,375.28 (converted from SGD31,199.08);

(d)    legal costs in the sum of AUD523,133.47 (converted from SGD448,691.58); and

(e)    interest on the sums set out at paragraphs 2(c) and (d) above at the simple rate of 5.33% per annum from 22 August 2025 until the date the judgment is paid.

3.    The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding as agreed or assessed.

4.    The matter be listed as returnable on 2 February 2026 (Return Date).

5.    Orders 1 to 3 of these Orders be stayed until 5:00 pm on the Return Date, or, if the respondents file an application to set aside those Orders by the date set out in paragraph 6(b) below, until the final determination of that application.

6.    The applicant:

(a)    provide notice of these Orders to the respondents by 5:00 pm on 9 December 2025, and

(b)    inform the respondents that unless the respondents file an application to oppose and set aside Orders 1 to 3 of these Orders by the date that is 28 days after they are given notice of these Orders (noting that the period between 24 December 2025 and 14 January 2026 is not to be counted), then upon an affidavit being provided establishing to the satisfaction of the Court that notice has been given to the respondents, the stay granted in Order 5 will expire.

7.    The applicant give the notice referred to in Order 6(a) by serving on the respondents a copy of these Orders and the material relied upon by the applicant before the Court:

(a)    By registered post to Ms Josephine Choo and Mr Samuel Navindran at WongPartnership LLP, 12 Marina Boulevard, Level 28, Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 3, Singapore 018982;

(b)    By registered post to EzyRemit Worldwide Pty Ltd, Level 7, 25 Restwell Street, Bankstown, NSW 2200 Australia;

(c)    By registered post to Van Thanh Nguyen, 22 St Charbel Way, Punchbowl, NSW 2196 Australia;

(d)    By email to:

(i)    ‘josephine.choo@wongpartnership.com’;

(ii)    ‘samuel.navindran@wongpartnership.com’; and

(iii)    ‘allan.nguyen@ezyremit.com’.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered ex tempore, revised from the transcript)

STEWART J:

1    The applicant applies ex parte to enforce a foreign arbitral award against EzyRemit Worldwide Pty Ltd and Van Thanh Nguyen under s 8(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (IAA).

2    The foreign award that the applicant seeks to enforce is an award issued by Gavin Margetson as sole arbitrator on 22 August 2025 in Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) arbitration no. 479 of 2024 and SIAC arbitration no. 480 of 2024. The two arbitrations were consolidated by the SIAC Court of Arbitration. The award, which was made in Singapore, was designated as award no. 128 of 2025 in SIAC’s registry of awards.

3    The award finally determined the two consolidated arbitrations. They were commenced by the applicant against the respondents under two related agreements. The first is the Master XRP Commitment to Sell Agreement dated 19 May 2022 between Ripple Labs Singapore Pte Ltd (Ripple Labs) and the first respondent as amended on 24 May 2023 and 18 November 2023. Under the Commitment to Sell Agreement, the first respondent agreed to pay for the transfer of a digital native token, known as XRP. Although the Commitment to Sell Agreement was originally concluded between Ripple Labs and the first respondent, Ripple Labs amalgamated with the applicant in 2023. As part of that amalgamation, Ripple Labs’ rights, liabilities and obligations under the Commitment to Sell Agreement were transferred to the applicant from 1 October 2023.

4    In the result, the applicant was able to make the claim in the arbitration that was commenced under the Commitment to Sell Agreement on 28 October 2024. No issue was taken in the arbitration in relation to the applicant’s right to rely on the Commitment to Sell Agreement.

5    The other agreement is a deed of guarantee dated 8 January 2024 made and executed by the second respondent in favour of the applicant. The second respondent guaranteed the first respondent’s payment obligations to the applicant under the Commitment to Sell Agreement.

6    Both agreements contained arbitration clauses to the effect that any disputes be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered by SIAC and that the seat of the arbitration would be Singapore.

7    The arbitration concerned the first respondent’s failure to pay AU$700,000 to the applicant for the transfer of XRP, which the first respondent had purchased and received, and the second respondent’s subsequent failure to pay that amount to the applicant under the guarantee. The tribunal found that the first respondent had breached the Commitment to Sell Agreement by failing to make full payment of the sums due and payable to the applicant and that the second respondent had breached the guarantee by failing to make full payment of the sums due and payable by the first respondent.

8    The tribunal ordered in the award that the respondents jointly and severally pay the applicant the following amounts:

(1)    damages in the sum of AUD700,000;

(2)    interest on that sum at 2% per month compounded daily from 8 January 2024 until payment;

(3)    the applicant’s arbitration costs in the sum of SGD31,199.08 and the applicant’s legal costs in the sum of SGD448,691.58; and

(4)    interest on the sums for costs at the simple rate of 5.33% per annum from 22 August 2025 until the date of payment.

9    On 4 September 2025, the applicant demanded payment from the respondents of the sums payable under the award. The evidence before the Court is that the respondents have not responded to that demand, nor have they identified any grounds on which they might challenge the award. The amounts awarded remain unpaid.

10    It is convenient now to identify the various matters that the applicant must satisfy the Court of in order to have the award enforced under s 8(3) of the IAA.

11    The first is that the award be a “foreign award” (s 8(1) read with s 3(1) of the Act). The award was made in a country other than Australia, being Singapore. It is an arbitral award in relation to which the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) applies. That requirement is accordingly met. See Siemens WLL v BIC Contracting LLC [2022] FCA 1029 at [19]-[21].

12    The award is, on its face, binding on the parties, having not been set aside or suspended (s 8(5)(f)).

13    A duly authenticated and certified copy of the award has been tendered (s 9(2)(a)). Duly certified copies of the arbitration agreements have also been tendered (s 9(2)(b)). I am satisfied as to the authenticity of those documents.

14    As mentioned, the evidence is that the award has not been complied with. There is evidence of the usual or last known places of residence of the second respondent and of the registered address of the first respondent. There is no reason why the subject matter of the arbitration is not capable of settlement by arbitration. For the reasons explained above, the parties to the arbitration agreements are the parties to the award. And for the reasons I will come to, the relief sought is relief strictly in accordance with the award.

15    As mentioned, the respondents have not applied in Singapore, the seat of the arbitration, to set aside the award, nor have they communicated any basis upon which they might challenge the award or contend that it is not enforceable. In accordance with its duty of candour on its ex parte application, the applicant has postulated some bases upon which the respondents might contend that the award is not enforceable. Each of these is speculative and would appear to have no merit, at least on the strength of what is currently before the Court.

16    In the circumstances, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case to enter judgment against the respondents but to stay that judgment until the return day and to put the respondents on terms to file an application to set aside the judgment. If they do so, then the stay will be extended until the final determination of that application – see Hankuk Carbon Co Ltd v Energy World Corporation Ltd [2024] FCA 232 at [15]-[22]. If they do not, the stay will come to an end on the return day.

17    I am satisfied that interest on the principal sum should accrue both before and after judgment at the same rate as awarded by the tribunal. That approach best gives effect to the terms of the award as if it were a judgment of the Court – see IAA s 8(3) and Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Kingdom of Spain (relief) [2025] FCA 1469 at [14]-[22].

18    The costs amounts claimed were awarded in Singapore dollars but have been converted to Australian dollars as at today’s date, which is appropriate given that the judgment is in Australian dollars and may be enforced in Australia – see Tianjin Jishengtai Investment Consulting Partnership Enterprise v Huang [2020] FCA 767 at [23] per Jagot J.

19    The tribunal awarded interest on those amounts at the post-judgment rate applicable in Singapore on amounts in Singapore dollars. There may be a case to say that the Australian post-judgment interest rate should be applied under Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 52(2)(a) and Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 39.06 (FCR). That is a far higher rate, currently 9.85%. That higher rate is not sought by the applicant. I am content that the lower rate awarded by the arbitrator is the most appropriate rate to apply as, once again, that most closely gives effect to the terms of the award.

20    I am satisfied that the physical and email addresses identified by the applicant for the giving of notice to the respondents are their last known addresses and that the means of giving them notice at those addresses is appropriate as likely to be successful. Those addresses include addresses of the solicitors who acted for the respondents in the arbitration in Singapore as well as the last known residential address and email address of the second respondent and the registered office address of the first respondent. The expectation is that after the passage of 28 days from the time that the respondents are given notice, noting that the period between 24 December and 14 January is not to be counted (see FCR r 1.61(5)), the applicant will file an affidavit establishing that notice was given in accordance with the orders.

21    I will make orders accordingly.

Associate:

Dated:    9 December 2025