Gate Mena DMCC (Formerly Known as Huobi OTC DMCC) (2) Huobi Mena FZE v (1) Tabarak Investment Capital Limited (2) Christian Thurner [2024] DIFC CA 002 (13 June 2024)

Gate Mena DMCC (Formerly Known as Huobi OTC DMCC) (2) Huobi Mena FZE v (1) Tabarak Investment Capital Limited (2) Christian Thurner [2024] DIFC CA 002 (13 June 2024)

Bitcoin and similar crypto assets are property under DIFC law, forming a third category distinct from choses in possession or action. Control is the relevant legal concept for custody. Tabarak acted as custodian with factual control over BTC. The appeal is allowed in part against Tabarak (First Respondent) on Ground No. 3, requiring retrial, as the Judge misdirected himself regarding Tabarak's role and obligations in the transaction modalities. The appeal against Christian Thurner (Second Respondent) is dismissed. Procedural irregularity claims do not warrant overturning the decision.

Citation
[2024] DIFC CA 002
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Gate MENA DMCC (formerly known as Huobi OTC DMCC); Claimant/appellant: Huobi MENA FZE; Defendant/respondent: Tabarak Investment Capital Limited; Defendant/respondent: Christian Thurner
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
13 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part against Tabarak; retrial ordered on Ground No. 3; appeal dismissed against Christian Thurner.
Legal Topics
Cryptocurrency, Custody and Control, Breach of Confidence, Bailment, Fiduciary Duty, Regulatory Compliance, Pure Economic Loss
Commercial Law Digital Assets Law Contract Law Tort Law Cryptocurrency Custody and Control Breach of Confidence Bailment +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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gate MENA DMCC (formerly known as Huobi OTC DMCC)

Claimant/appellant

Huobi MENA FZE

Claimant/appellant

Tabarak Investment Capital Limited

Defendant/respondent

Christian Thurner

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are Bitcoin and other crypto assets property under DIFC law?
  2. 2 Did Tabarak owe Huobi contractual, tortious, or fiduciary duties regarding the custody and transfer of BTC?
  3. 3 Was there a binding contract between Huobi and Tabarak?

Ratio Decidendi

Bitcoin and similar crypto assets are property under DIFC law, forming a third category distinct from choses in possession or action. Control is the relevant legal concept for custody. Tabarak acted as custodian with factual control over BTC. The appeal is allowed in part against Tabarak (First Respondent) on Ground No. 3, requiring retrial, as the Judge misdirected himself regarding Tabarak's role and obligations in the transaction modalities. The appeal against Christian Thurner (Second Respondent) is dismissed. Procedural irregularity claims do not warrant overturning the decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part against Tabarak; retrial ordered on Ground No. 3; appeal dismissed against Christian Thurner.

Orders

  • Retrial ordered as to Tabarak under Ground No. 3 (paragraphs 183 and 184 of Judgment).
  • Claim No. TCD-001-2020 remitted to Digital Economy Court; Case Management Conference to be fixed.