Crypton Digital Assets Ltd v Blockchain Luxembourg SA

Crypton Digital Assets Ltd v Blockchain Luxembourg SA

The Amended Particulars of Claim, read as a whole and with cross-references, sufficiently identified the primary facts relied upon for the claims in unlawful means conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and dishonest assistance. The pleadings gave adequate notice of the case to be met, and the Deputy Master did not err in refusing to strike out these claims. The appeal court's role was to assess whether the pleadings met the requirements for each cause of action, not to evaluate the merits of the claims. The grounds of appeal failed and the substantive appeal was dismissed.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Refusing to Strike Out Parts of Amended Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Pleading Requirements, Inducing Breach of Contract, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Dishonest Assistance, Fiduciary Duties, Copyright Infringement, Breach of Confidence
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Employment Law Intellectual Property Strike Out Applications Pleading Requirements Inducing Breach of Contract Unlawful Means Conspiracy +4 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 11 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Refusing to Strike Out Parts of Amended Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Particulars of Claim adequately plead claims for unlawful means conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and dishonest assistance against Blockchain.
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Master erred in refusing to strike out these claims for lack of particularity or failure to disclose reasonable grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Particulars of Claim, read as a whole and with cross-references, sufficiently identified the primary facts relied upon for the claims in unlawful means conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and dishonest assistance. The pleadings gave adequate notice of the case to be met, and the Deputy Master did not err in refusing to strike out these claims. The appeal court's role was to assess whether the pleadings met the requirements for each cause of action, not to evaluate the merits of the claims. The grounds of appeal failed and the substantive appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Substantive appeal dismissed