Gary Jones v Persons Unknown & Ors (No.2)

Gary Jones v Persons Unknown & Ors (No.2)

Kyrrex Limited is not directly affected by the judgment as the order did not require transfer of Bitcoin belonging to Kyrrex; any loss suffered was due to Huobi's actions, not the court's order. The merits of Kyrrex's claim are insufficient and delay has caused prejudice to Mr Jones. Application fails on both standing and merits.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Gary Jones; Defendant: Persons Unknown (1); Defendant: Persons Unknown (2); Defendant: Persons Unknown (3); Defendant: Huobi Global Limited; Third Party/cpr 40.9 Applicant: Kyrrex Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application to Set Aside/vary Judgment Under CPR 40.9
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
CPR 40.9 Applications, Freezing Injunctions, Persons Unknown Orders, Cryptocurrency Tracing, Constructive Trust, Unjust Enrichment
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Cryptocurrency Law CPR 40.9 Applications Freezing Injunctions Persons Unknown Orders Cryptocurrency Tracing Constructive Trust +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Jones

Claimant/respondent

Persons Unknown (1)

Defendant

Persons Unknown (2)

Defendant

Persons Unknown (3)

Defendant

Huobi Global Limited

Defendant

Kyrrex Limited

Third Party/cpr 40.9 Applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application to Set Aside/vary Judgment Under CPR 40.9

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Kyrrex Limited is directly affected by the judgment under CPR 40.9
  2. 2 Whether Kyrrex has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim if judgment is set aside
  3. 3 Whether delay and prejudice bar the application to set aside judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Kyrrex Limited is not directly affected by the judgment as the order did not require transfer of Bitcoin belonging to Kyrrex; any loss suffered was due to Huobi's actions, not the court's order. The merits of Kyrrex's claim are insufficient and delay has caused prejudice to Mr Jones. Application fails on both standing and merits.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant awarded costs on standard basis until 21 May 2025, indemnity basis thereafter
  • Permission to appeal refused