Crypton Digital Assets Ltd & Anor v Blockchain Luxembourg SA & Ors [2021] EWHC 3194 (Ch) (29 November 2021)

Crypton Digital Assets Ltd & Anor v Blockchain Luxembourg SA & Ors [2021] EWHC 3194 (Ch) (29 November 2021)

The Amended Particulars of Claim, read as a whole, sufficiently identified the primary facts relied upon for the claims in unlawful means conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and dishonest assistance. The pleadings met the requirements for notice and particularisation, and the Deputy Master was correct not to strike out the claims under CPR 3.4(2)(a).

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3194 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Crypton Digital Assets Limited; Claimant/respondent: Crypton Partner Management Limited; Defendant/appellant: Blockchain Luxembourg SA; Defendant/appellant: Blockchain (GB) Limited; Defendant: Stephen Jones; Defendant: Petros-Alexander Koumpas; Defendant: Mark Curtis; Defendant: Castramet Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal From Order Refusing to Strike Out Claims
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Pleading Requirements, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Inducing Breach of Contract, Dishonest Assistance, Copyright Infringement, Breach of Confidence
Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Intellectual Property Strike Out Applications Pleading Requirements Unlawful Means Conspiracy Inducing Breach of Contract Dishonest Assistance +2 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crypton Digital Assets Limited

Claimant/respondent

Crypton Partner Management Limited

Claimant/respondent

Blockchain Luxembourg SA

Defendant/appellant

Blockchain (GB) Limited

Defendant/appellant

Stephen Jones

Defendant

Petros-Alexander Koumpas

Defendant

Mark Curtis

Defendant

Castramet Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal From Order Refusing to Strike Out Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims for unlawful means conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and dishonest assistance were adequately pleaded against Blockchain and should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Particulars of Claim, read as a whole, sufficiently identified the primary facts relied upon for the claims in unlawful means conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and dishonest assistance. The pleadings met the requirements for notice and particularisation, and the Deputy Master was correct not to strike out the claims under CPR 3.4(2)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused or, if granted, appeal dismissed; the claims in unlawful means conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and dishonest assistance are not struck out.