header-logo header-logo

Radical cryptoassets claim given go-ahead

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll