Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association for BSV & Ors (Rev 1) [2022] EWHC 141 (Ch) (26 January 2022)

Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association for BSV & Ors (Rev 1) [2022] EWHC 141 (Ch) (26 January 2022)

Security for costs should be set at 70% of the defendants' estimated and incurred costs, reflecting a broad-brush discount for uncertainties, and must be provided in the conventional form (payment into court or bank guarantee) rather than in digital assets, as the latter does not provide equal protection due to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 141 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Tulip Trading Limited; 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: Roger Ver; Defendant: Amaury Séchet; Defendant: Jason Cox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Consequential Matters on Security for Costs and Costs of Security Applications
Outcome
Security for costs ordered at 70% of defendants' estimated and incurred costs; security to be provided by payment into court or bank guarantee; costs of security applications awarded to defendants with a 15% reduction.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Assessment, Jurisdiction Applications, Form of Security, Issue Based Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Costs Assessment Jurisdiction Applications Form of Security Issue Based Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tulip Trading Limited

Claimant

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

Roger Ver

Defendant

Amaury Séchet

Defendant

Jason Cox

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment Consequential Matters on Security for Costs and Costs of Security Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate amount of security for the defendants' costs of the jurisdiction applications?
  2. 2 Should security be provided in the form of digital assets (Bitcoin) or in the conventional form (payment into court or bank guarantee)?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate order as to the costs of the security applications, including any reduction for issues lost?

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs should be set at 70% of the defendants' estimated and incurred costs, reflecting a broad-brush discount for uncertainties, and must be provided in the conventional form (payment into court or bank guarantee) rather than in digital assets, as the latter does not provide equal protection due to volatility and enforcement risks. The defendants are entitled to their costs of the security applications, subject to a 15% reduction for failure on one substantive issue.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered at 70% of defendants' estimated and incurred costs; security to be provided by payment into court or bank guarantee; costs of security applications awarded to defendants with a 15% reduction.

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for D2-12 in the sum of £139,561.07 by payment into court or bank guarantee.
  • Claimant to provide security for D15/16 in the sum of £108,793.46 by payment into court or bank guarantee.