header-logo header-logo

08 February 2023
Issue: 8012 / Categories: Legal News , Cyber , Technology
printer mail-detail

Radical cryptoassets claim given go-ahead

A case seeking to prove software developers owe a fiduciary duty to the owners of digital assets should go to trial, the Court of Appeal has held.

Lawyers say the claim, if successful, would be ground-breaking, setting a precedent that any software developers who have ever written and contributed open-source code (code that can be used by anyone) owe duties to all the users of that code. The duty would be applicable to any digital asset, including cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens.

Consequently, software developers could face billion-dollar claims from owners of cryptoassets with whom they have had no previous contact—a major deterrent to open-source coding.

Ruling in Tulip Trading (a Seychelles company) v Bitcoin Association & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 83 last week, the court found there was a ‘serious issue to be tried’—the prerequisite for serving proceedings on persons outside the jurisdiction of the English courts.

Tulip Trading is owned by computer scientist Dr Craig Wright, who claims to be the creator of bitcoin and the identity behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, issued a multi-billion dollar claim against 16 cryptocurrency developers, alleging private keys were hacked and removed from Wright’s computer, meaning Tulip was unable to access crypto-assets worth £3bn. Tulip claims the developers of the relevant software owe the company a fiduciary duty and duty of care to assist Tulip to regain access and control of the assets via a software patch.

The defendants are open-source developers who voluntarily write and post code to GitHub, an open-source forum, and are not based in England.

James Ramsden KC, acting for the defendants, said: ‘The courts in this jurisdiction continue to lead the common law world in developing a legal structure for the de-fi sector [decentralised finance].

‘This case will be the most important so far in maintaining that lead and continuing to establish this jurisdiction as the leader for de-fi litigation. The outcome of this claim at trial will therefore have a profound impact and not just in the UK.

‘That impact will apply regardless of whatever regulation the UK government eventually settles on. So watch this space.’

Issue: 8012 / Categories: Legal News , Cyber , Technology
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll