Mooij v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 814 (Comm) (14 February 2024)

Mooij v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 814 (Comm) (14 February 2024)

Summary judgment is granted against persons unknown (defendants 1 and 2) for both proprietary and non-proprietary relief because valid alternative service was effected, establishing jurisdiction, and there is no real prospect of defence. Judgment is also granted against the Huobi-related defendants for proprietary relief (delivery up of bitcoin) but not for the fiat funds, as evidence does not show receipt. The freezing injunction is continued post-judgment without a cross-undertaking in damages.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 814 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Johannes Nicolaas Lambertus Mooij; Defendant: Persons Unknown (1); Defendant: Persons Unknown (2); Defendant: Persons Unknown (3); Defendant: The owner of, controller and/or the persons currently in control of the rights and assets that were the property of Huobi Global Limited; Defendant: Binance Holdings Limited; Defendant: Megamarkets Trading Limited; Defendant: New Huo Technology Holdings Limited, trading as New Huo Tech; Defendant: Huobi Technology Europe Ltd; Defendant: Huobipay; Defendant: Huobi International Pte. Ltd; Defendant: Brtuomi Worldwide Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud / Proprietary Claim / Summary Judgment and Continuation of Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of claimant against defendants 1 and 2 for both bitcoin and €330,000; summary judgment granted against defendants 4 and 7-11 for proprietary relief (delivery up of bitcoin); freezing injunction continued post-judgment; costs summarily assessed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Freezing Injunction, Proprietary Claims, Alternative Service, Persons Unknown, Jurisdiction, Tracing Assets
Commercial Law Fraud Cryptocurrency Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Freezing Injunction Proprietary Claims Alternative Service +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Nicolaas Lambertus Mooij

Claimant

Persons Unknown (1)

Defendant

Persons Unknown (2)

Defendant

Persons Unknown (3)

Defendant

The owner of, controller and/or the persons currently in control of the rights and assets that were the property of Huobi Global Limited

Defendant

Binance Holdings Limited

Defendant

Megamarkets Trading Limited

Defendant

New Huo Technology Holdings Limited, trading as New Huo Tech

Defendant

Huobi Technology Europe Ltd

Defendant

Huobipay

Defendant

Huobi International Pte. Ltd

Defendant

Brtuomi Worldwide Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud / Proprietary Claim / Summary Judgment and Continuation of Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be granted against persons unknown for proprietary and non-proprietary claims involving cryptocurrency and fiat currency fraud.
  2. 2 Whether a final freezing injunction should be continued post-judgment.
  3. 3 Whether alternative service on persons unknown is sufficient to establish jurisdiction for final relief.

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment is granted against persons unknown (defendants 1 and 2) for both proprietary and non-proprietary relief because valid alternative service was effected, establishing jurisdiction, and there is no real prospect of defence. Judgment is also granted against the Huobi-related defendants for proprietary relief (delivery up of bitcoin) but not for the fiat funds, as evidence does not show receipt. The freezing injunction is continued post-judgment without a cross-undertaking in damages.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of claimant against defendants 1 and 2 for both bitcoin and €330,000; summary judgment granted against defendants 4 and 7-11 for proprietary relief (delivery up of bitcoin); freezing injunction continued post-judgment; costs summarily assessed.

Orders

  • Defendants 1 and 2 to deliver up 20.34 bitcoin and pay €330,000 to claimant.
  • Defendants 4 and 7-11 to deliver up 20.34 bitcoin to claimant.