Tulip Trading Limited (a Seychelles company) v Wladimir Jasper van der Laan & Ors.

Tulip Trading Limited (a Seychelles company) v Wladimir Jasper van der Laan & Ors.

The appeal was allowed because the case advanced by Tulip Trading Limited raises a serious issue to be tried as to whether bitcoin developers owe fiduciary duties to owners of cryptocurrency. The High Court erred in ruling the claim unarguable at this stage, as the facts and the law in this developing area require full trial. The time to decide the existence and scope of any fiduciary duty is after factual findings, not on a summary basis.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Tulip Trading Limited; Respondent/defendant: Wladimir Jasper van der Laan; Respondent/defendant: Jonas Schnelli; Respondent/defendant: Pieter Wuille; Respondent/defendant: Marco Patrick Falke; Respondent/defendant: Samuel Dobson; Respondent/defendant: Michael Rohan Ford; Respondent/defendant: Cory Fields; Respondent/defendant: George Michael Dombrowski; Respondent/defendant: Matthew Gregory Corallo; Respondent/defendant: Peter Todd; Respondent/defendant: Gregory Fulton Maxwell; Respondent/defendant: Bitcoin Association for BSV; Respondent/defendant: Eric Lombrozo; Respondent/defendant: Roger Ver; Respondent/defendant: Amaury Séchet; Respondent/defendant: Jason Bradley Cox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Jurisdiction and Summary Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duties of Software Developers, Cryptocurrency as Property, Jurisdiction for Foreign Defendants, Summary Judgment Standards, Remedies for Lost Cryptoassets
Fiduciary Law Tort Law Property Law Digital Assets Fiduciary Duties of Software Developers Cryptocurrency as Property Jurisdiction for Foreign Defendants Summary Judgment Standards +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tulip Trading Limited

Appellant/claimant

Wladimir Jasper van der Laan

Respondent/defendant

Jonas Schnelli

Respondent/defendant

Pieter Wuille

Respondent/defendant

Marco Patrick Falke

Respondent/defendant

Samuel Dobson

Respondent/defendant

Michael Rohan Ford

Respondent/defendant

Cory Fields

Respondent/defendant

George Michael Dombrowski

Respondent/defendant

Matthew Gregory Corallo

Respondent/defendant

Peter Todd

Respondent/defendant

Gregory Fulton Maxwell

Respondent/defendant

Bitcoin Association for BSV

Respondent/defendant

Eric Lombrozo

Respondent/defendant

Roger Ver

Respondent/defendant

Amaury Séchet

Respondent/defendant

Jason Bradley Cox

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Jurisdiction and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bitcoin developers owe fiduciary duties to owners of cryptocurrency
  2. 2 Whether developers owe duties in tort to owners
  3. 3 Whether the claim raises a serious issue to be tried justifying service out of jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the case advanced by Tulip Trading Limited raises a serious issue to be tried as to whether bitcoin developers owe fiduciary duties to owners of cryptocurrency. The High Court erred in ruling the claim unarguable at this stage, as the facts and the law in this developing area require full trial. The time to decide the existence and scope of any fiduciary duty is after factual findings, not on a summary basis.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed; the claim may proceed to trial on the merits including the amended case.