Auteurs

Emma Allen

Senior counsel

Read More

Samantha Brendish

Collaborateur senior

Read More
Auteurs

Emma Allen

Senior counsel

Read More

Samantha Brendish

Collaborateur senior

Read More

4 avril 2022

Disputes Quick Read – 38 de 86 Publications

Don't lose your keys: Bitcoin developers do not have a duty to assist owners in recovering lost cryptocurrency

  • Briefing

In the latest chapter in the high profile Tulip litigation (Tulip Trading Limited v Bitcoin Association for BSV and others [2022] EWHC 667 (Ch)), the High Court found that the Defendant software developers did not owe any fiduciary or tortious duties to the claimant, Tulip Trading Limited ("Tulip"), to help it in regaining control and use of its Bitcoin.

The Bitcoin in question was said to be worth U$4.5 billion and had allegedly been subject to a hack that resulted in the deletion of the private keys. Tulip alleged it would be relatively straightforward for the Defendants to write and implement a software "patch" to enable the Claimant to regain control of its assets – a point which the Defendants challenged as being inconsistent with the concept of a decentralised system, and which they claimed would in any event likely be ineffective and simply result in a "fork" in the network.

Background to the claim

Tulip is a Seychelles incorporated company whose ultimate beneficial owners are Dr Craig Wright and his family, who are residents in England. The litigation has been the subject of a high degree of publicity, partly due to Dr Wright's (disputed) claim that he is Satoshi Nakamoto – the author of the Bitcoin white paper. The Defendants were said to be the core developers and/or otherwise in control of four relevant digital asset networks. None of the Defendants are based in England and Wales, although in May 2021, the Court granted Tulip permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. A number of Defendants issued a jurisdictional challenge concerning the order for permission to serve out, and the latest decision arises as a result of the Court's determination of that application. It is therefore relevant to note that, like many cases in the crypto arena, this was an interim application rather than a full trial.

To be successful in their jurisdictional challenge, the Defendants had to show that the claim did not meet at least one of the following criteria: 

  • (i) there was a serious issue to be tried 
  • (ii) there was a good arguable case that the claim fell within one or more of the jurisdictional gateways 
  • (iii) in all the circumstances English was the appropriate forum and the Court should exercise its discretion to permit service out of the jurisdiction. 

While the Court considered each of these tests for completeness, it overturned the permission to serve out on the basis that the claim did not meet limb (i) of the test. The Defendants therefore overcame a high threshold with the Court finding itself unable to conclude that Tulip had a realistic prospect of establishing that the facts pleaded amount to a breach of fiduciary and/or tortious duty owed to it by the Defendants. 

Reasons for the Court's decision

In reaching its decision that the Defendants did not owe any fiduciary or tortious duties as alleged, one of the factors on which the Court placed weight was that the developers of the network software were a fluctuating body of contributors without any organisation or structure. It held that:

  • In relation to the alleged fiduciary duties, it could not realistically be argued that the Defendants owed continuing obligations to, for example, remain as developers and make future updates whenever it might be in the interests of owners of Bitcoin to do so.
  • In relation to the alleged tortious duties, the required special relationship to found a duty of care could not be said to be an incremental extension of the existing law, and (particularly given its unlimited nature) could not realistically be argued to be fair, just and reasonable. The Court stated that it was hard to see how there was any basis for imposing an obligation which would require developers to continue to be involved and make changes when required by Bitcoin owners, when they have given no previous commitment or assurance that they would do so and their previous involvement may well have been intermittent. 

Future trends

This is the first English Court decision considering the role and duties of cryptocurrency software developers, although we anticipate that this will become an emerging trend in the case law surrounding digital assets and smart contracts, with increased consideration of the intentions of contracting parties and programmers.

We think the decision in this case was unsurprising, but it is nonetheless reassuring for the cryptoasset and blockchain industry. No doubt we will continue to see claims being brought seeking help where eg private keys have been lost, or smart contracts have gone wrong, and the law will need to continue to adapt to respond – for now, the courts of England and Wales are continuing to showcase their ability to rise to the challenges that new and developing technology brings.

Dans cette série

Résolution des litiges

ClientEarth v FCA: Challenging Regulator Decisions

12 February 2024

par Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev

Résolution des litiges

What are the litigation trends for 2024?

1 February 2024

par Katie Chandler, Emma Allen

Résolution des litiges

The use of AI in Trial Witness Statements post-PD 57AC

23 October 2023

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?

14 August 2023

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Supreme Court rules that APP fraud victims cannot rely on Quincecare Duty

4 August 2023

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth refused permission to pursue directors of Shell

1 June 2023

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

CJC costs review – what will change?

1 June 2023

par James Bryden, Helen Robinson

Résolution des litiges

Embargoed judgments – dos and don'ts

16 May 2023

par Stephanie High

Cryptoactifs, blockchain et technologie des registres distribués (DLT) et projets Web 3.0

Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime

9 August 2022

par Nick Maday

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction

Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts

28 July 2022

par Emma Allen, Samantha Brendish

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices

23 September 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Coronavirus

Disputes Quick Read: COVID-19 and supply chain disruption – key issues

9 April 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms

27 April 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Coronavirus

Disputes Quick Read: Embracing remote hearings – the experience to date

26 March 2020

par plusieurs auteurs

Résolution des litiges

Disputes quick read: pilot error?

13 February 2020

par Andrew Howell

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it

7 April 2022

par plusieurs auteurs

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

Résolution des litiges

Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it

7 avril 2022
Briefing

par plusieurs auteurs

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus
Résolution des litiges

Cryptoasset fraud: Squid coin rug-pull and tracing cryptoassets

19 novembre 2021
Briefing

par plusieurs auteurs

Cliquer ici pour en savoir plus