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.
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.
Court of Appeal Provides Comfort to Lenders on Default Interest Clauses
In Houssein & Others v. London Credit Ltd & Another[1], the Court of Appeal considered the proper application of the common law rules on penalties to a default interest clause in a loan agreement. Contrary to the conclusion of the High Court, the Court of Appeal found that in light of relevant case law, the lender ‘inevitably’ had a legitimate interest in the enforcement of the obligation to repay the loan, which would justify a default interest clause.
UK Supreme Court Emphasises Importance of Mitigation in Sale of Goods Claims
In its judgment in Sharp Corporation Ltd v. Viterra BV[1] handed down last month, the UK Supreme Court held that damages for nonacceptance of goods should be determined by reference to the realisable value of the goods left in the seller’s hands in consequence of nonacceptance – and not on the basis of a notional substitute contract on the same terms as the parties’ contract.
Commercial Purpose Key to Interpreting Claims Notice Clauses
The English Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Drax Smart Generation Holdco Ltd v. Scottish Power Retail Holdings Ltd[1] put commercial purpose at the heart of interpretation of a claims notice clause, thereby avoiding the technical minefield that has brought an end to otherwise valid claims so often in recent years.
MUR Shipping BV v. RTI Ltd: UK Supreme Court Allows Appeal
In a final twist to this long and winding litigation, the UK Supreme Court has allowed MUR Shipping’s appeal, holding that ‘reasonable endeavours’ provisions in force majeure clauses (express or implied) do not require parties to accept noncontractual performance.
Court of Appeal Considers Incorporation of Terms Into Online Contracts
In Parker-Grennan v. Camelot UK Lotteries Limited, the Court of Appeal considered, for the first time, what needs to be done to incorporate standard terms for goods or services into a contract which is made online.
No Carve Out for Fraud in Limitation Clause
In Innovate Pharmaceuticals Limited v. University of Portsmouth Higher Education Corporation,[1] the High Court of England and Wales held that a limitation clause was drafted sufficiently broadly to limit liability even in cases of fraudulent performance of the contract.
Digital Asset Fraud: No Final Orders To Be Made Against Unidentifiable ‘Persons Unknown’
In its recent decision in Boonyaem v. Persons Unknown Category A, Persons Unknown Category B and INGFX Limited, the High Court of England and Wales addressed some of the key issues that have frequently arisen in cases of digital asset fraud. Notably, while the judge granted summary judgment against ‘persons unknown’ who were currently anonymous but identifiable, he refused to enter judgment against ‘persons unknown’ who were both anonymous and unidentifiable.
UK Supreme Court Confirms Requirements for Claims in ‘Knowing Receipt’
At the end of 2023, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Byers and others v. Saudi National Bank[1]. Unanimously dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court definitively determined that a claim in knowing receipt cannot be brought if the claimant’s equitable interest in the relevant property has been extinguished – regardless of the fact that the recipient of the property was aware that it was being transferred to it in breach of trust.