作者

Emma Allen

合伙人

Read More

Samantha Brendish

高级律师

Read More
作者

Emma Allen

合伙人

Read More

Samantha Brendish

高级律师

Read More

2022年7月28日

Disputes Quick Read – 32 / 88 观点

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

  • Quick read

From 1 October 2022, Practice Direction 6B of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (which sets out the gateways for service of English proceedings out of the jurisdiction) will be amended to include a new gateway at paragraph 3.1(25). 

The new wording covers claims or applications for disclosure to obtain information regarding: (i) the true identity of a defendant or a potential defendant; and/or (ii) what has become of the property of a claimant or applicant.

In a move which will bolster the toolkit for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts, the amendment clarifies and codifies the position around obtaining permission to serve Norwich Pharmacal Orders (NPOs) and Bankers Trust orders (BTOs) outside of the jurisdiction. In summary:

  • NPOs are disclosure orders which allow the applicant to obtain information from a third party who has become involved or "mixed up" in wrongdoing, but who is not likely to be party to the proceedings. NPOs are commonly used to identify the proper defendant to an action or to obtain information to plead a claim. 
  • BTOs are only available where, on the face of it, there is a clear case of fraud. They are made against banks or other organisations that are either holding misappropriated or stolen funds or have had those funds pass through them. A claimant who seeks disclosure against a non-party must demonstrate a real prospect that the information might lead to the location or preservation of assets to which the claimant makes a proprietary claim.

The need for this amendment to Practice Direction 6B has been made apparent in several recent decisions within the crypto dispute space. In Ion Science v Persons Unknown (unreported), 21 December 2020 (Commercial Court), the judge granted permission to serve a foreign exchange with a BTO but declined to express a view on whether AB Bank Ltd v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC [2016] EWHC 2082 (Comm), which held that NPOs could not be served outside of the jurisdiction, was correctly decided. The AB Bank Ltd approach was followed in another crypto dispute, Fetch.ai Limited v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 2254 (Comm), but the position was complicated by an inconsistent decision in Mr Dollar Bill Ltd v Persons Unknown and Others [2021] EWHC 2718 (Ch), where permission was given to serve an NPO out of the jurisdiction. 

The amendment will provide welcome clarity, with the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, stating that he hoped that developments in the Court’s rules will make the "fine distinction" between NPOs and BTOs less significant and make it generally easier to litigate issues that arise for on-chain transactions and the tracing of crypto assets.

While parties will still need permission to serve an NPO and/or BTO out of the jurisdiction, the amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules is welcome news for anyone pursuing a fraud claim through the English courts. This follows another recent and significant development in the jurisprudence regarding service of proceedings, in the case of D'Aloia v (1) Persons Unknown (2) Binance Holdings Limited & Others, where the court ordered the service of proceedings via the transfer of a newly minted NFT on the blockchain (which was only the second instance of such an order having been granted globally, and the first in the courts of England and Wales). Both of these developments are good examples of how the English Courts are able to adapt quickly to the challenges of globalisation and digitalisation.  

本系列内容

纠纷和调查

Internal investigations - raising the bar

2024年5月1日

作者 Andrew Howell

纠纷和调查

New SFO Director announces bold plans to tackle fraud

2024年3月21日

作者 作者

纠纷和调查

What are the litigation trends for 2024?

2024年2月1日

作者 Katie Chandler, Emma Allen

纠纷和调查

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

2023年10月23日

作者 作者

纠纷和调查

Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?

2023年8月14日

作者 作者

纠纷和调查

CJC costs review – what will change?

2023年6月1日

作者 James Bryden, Helen Robinson

纠纷和调查

Embargoed judgments – dos and don'ts

2023年5月16日

作者 Stephanie High

加密资产、区块链和分布式账本技术

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

2022年8月9日

作者 Nick Maday

纠纷和调查

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

2022年7月28日

作者 Emma Allen, Samantha Brendish

纠纷和调查

Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices

2020年9月23日

作者 作者

纠纷和调查

Disputes quick read: pilot error?

2020年2月13日

作者 Andrew Howell

纠纷和调查

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

2022年4月7日

作者 作者

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

法人犯罪与合规性

Failure to prevent fraud: what you need to know

2024年2月8日
Quick read

作者 Emma Allen 以及 Adeolu Faniran

点击此处了解更多
法人犯罪与合规性

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 series

2024年2月8日
Quick read

作者

点击此处了解更多
法人犯罪与合规性

Corporate liability for fraud and economic crimes by senior managers within your business

2023年11月23日
Quick read

作者 Emma Allen 以及 Samantha Brendish

点击此处了解更多