In a significant judgment for the gaming industry, the High Court of England and Wales held in Gibson v. TSE Malta LP (t/a Betfair)[1] that gambling operators do not owe a general duty of care to their customers to prevent gambling-related harm, and that licence conditions imposed on operators do not create implied terms in the contract between the consumer and the operator.
Latest Articles
Tech Class Actions: The Headlines from across Europe
For our Cooley colleagues in the US, defending class actions against technology platforms has been a part of their day-to-day for many years. However, the need for class action defence lawyers is spreading rapidly to the UK and beyond. For many countries this is a relatively new but very significant trend. It’s one we could dedicate pages to, but we set out below the TLDR summary of what’s happening.
Consideration for Call Option Held Not To Be Turnover
In Aymes International Ltd v. Nutrition4U BV, the Court of Appeal held that the consideration paid by a purchaser for a call option should not be included in the calculation of the target company’s turnover on which the calculation of the purchase price was based.
UK Publishes Guidance on Failure to Prevent Fraud: Companies Without “Reasonable Prevention Procedures” Could Be Held Criminally Liable
On 6 November 2024, the UK government published guidance in respect of the failure to prevent fraud offence, which was introduced in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA).Under this offence, companies may be held criminally liable if they did not have ‘reasonable prevention procedures’ in place when a fraudulent act was committed by persons associated with them. The guidance helpfully outlines which factors businesses should consider when developing such procedures. Below, we have summarised key aspects of the guidance.
Conflicts of Law: Norwich Pharmacal Orders in Liechtenstein
In Magomedov & Others v. Kuzovkov & Others,[1] the High Court handed down an interesting decision examining the conflict of foreign criminal law with the discretion of the Courts of England and Wales to grant a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO).
Freeze! Do You Have a ‘Good Arguable Case’?
In dos Santos v. Unitel S.A.,[1] the Court of Appeal helpfully cut through some conflicting authorities and restated a key requirement that applicants must satisfy to be granted freezing injunctions.
(Truthful) Recollections May Vary: How English Courts Judge Truth From Memory
The judgment in Jaffé & Another v. Greybull Capital LLP & Others [1] gives an excellent insight into how the English courts are grappling with issues arising from the fallibility of memory.
The UK Online Safety Act: Categorically Challenging
As the deadline approaches for the UK to categorise online services under its new Online Safety Act (OSA), where might the lines be drawn, and what do you do if you disagree?
UK Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Suit Injunction in Support of French Arbitration
In UniCredit Bank GmbH v. RusChemAlliance LLC,[1] the UK Supreme Court confirmed the general common law rule that a choice of governing law for a contract as a whole will apply to an arbitration agreement within the contract, even when a different country has been chosen for the seat of the arbitration. This was important in the circumstances of the case because it meant that English – as opposed to French – law applied, which in turn gave the English courts jurisdiction to grant an injunction to restrain RusChemAlliance from litigating the dispute in Russian courts in breach of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.
D’Aloia v. Persons Unknown & Others: Victim of Crypto-Fraud Fails in Claim Against Crypto Exchange
In D’Aloia v. Persons Unknown & Others,[1] the High Court of England and Wales dismissed a claim brought by the victim of a crypto-scam against Bitkub, one of the exchanges with whom the fraudsters were alleged to have held their accounts.
This is the first judgment following a full contested trial on some fundamental points regarding the status and treatment of cryptocurrency and the potential liability of exchanges to victims of crypto-frauds. The lengthy judgment traverses a number of complex issues, confirming the rights attaching to tether (USDT) as a cryptoasset, as well as the application of trust and tracing principles in crypto-disputes.