Tulip Trading Limited v Bitcoin Association for BSV & Ors.

Tulip Trading Limited v Bitcoin Association for BSV & Ors.

The balance of prejudice does not favour granting a stay or adjournment. The claimant's alleged prejudice is not comparable to cases where refusal would extinguish the claim. D14 would suffer significant prejudice by being deprived of participation in related appeals. The claimant's change of position and delay in application are not justified by material changes in circumstances. The discretion under CPR 3.1(2)(b) and (f) is exercised against the stay.

Parties
Claimant: Tulip Trading Limited; Defendant (d14): Roger Ver; Defendant: Bitcoin Association for BSV; Defendant: Wladimir van der Laan; Defendant: Jonas Schnelli; Defendant: Pieter Wuille; Defendant: Marco Falke; Defendant: Samuel Dobson; Defendant: Michael Ford; Defendant: Cory Fields; Defendant: George Dombrowski; Defendant: Matthew Corallo; Defendant: Peter Todd; Defendant: Gregory Maxwell; Defendant: Eric Lombrozo; Defendant: Amaury Séchet; Defendant: Jason Cox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Stay/adjournment
Outcome
Application for stay/adjournment dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Challenge, Stay of Proceedings, Adjournment, Costs, Digital Assets, Fiduciary Duties, Tortious Duties
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Challenge Stay of Proceedings Adjournment Costs Digital Assets Fiduciary Duties Tortious Duties

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tulip Trading Limited

Claimant

Roger Ver

Defendant (d14)

Bitcoin Association for BSV

Defendant

Wladimir van der Laan

Defendant

Jonas Schnelli

Defendant

Pieter Wuille

Defendant

Marco Falke

Defendant

Samuel Dobson

Defendant

Michael Ford

Defendant

Cory Fields

Defendant

George Dombrowski

Defendant

Matthew Corallo

Defendant

Peter Todd

Defendant

Gregory Maxwell

Defendant

Eric Lombrozo

Defendant

Amaury Séchet

Defendant

Jason Cox

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Stay/adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a stay or adjournment of D14's jurisdiction challenge application pending appeal
  2. 2 Balance of prejudice between parties
  3. 3 Appropriate exercise of discretion under CPR 3.1(2)(b) and (f)

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of prejudice does not favour granting a stay or adjournment. The claimant's alleged prejudice is not comparable to cases where refusal would extinguish the claim. D14 would suffer significant prejudice by being deprived of participation in related appeals. The claimant's change of position and delay in application are not justified by material changes in circumstances. The discretion under CPR 3.1(2)(b) and (f) is exercised against the stay.

Court Disposition

Application for stay/adjournment dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's application for stay/adjournment of D14's jurisdiction challenge is dismissed