How a recent ruling on newcomers may offer a tool to combat cryptoasset fraud—Alvin Hoi-Chun Hung explains
- Examines Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers, where the Supreme Court upheld the creation of a ‘newcomer injunction’ that binds anyone with notice, even if they had no intention or had made no threat to perform the prohibited act at the time.
- Provides a practical examination of relevant case law and explores the legal implications of the newcomer injunction for victims of cryptoasset fraud.
For nearly 200 years, the courts have generally adhered to Lord Eldon’s dictum in Iveson v Harris (1802) 7 Ves 251, 32 ER 102, which affirmed the equitable principle that injunctions are orders in personam (against a person). In recent years, however, courts have shown an increasing tendency to diverge from this principle.
In Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47, [2024] 2 All ER 431, a landmark decision about unauthorised encampments, the Supreme Court made a significant move to revise this established orthodoxy. It ruled that courts can grant injunctions
