Butcher J said that the ‘. . lex situs of a cryptoasset is the place where the person or company who owns it is domiciled. . . There is apparently no decided case in relation to the lex situs for a cryptoasset. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that there is at least a serious issue to be tried that that is the correct analysis.’
As to the suggestion that AB Bank was wrongly decided, Butcher J said:’ I am not going on this interim application in circumstances where I have only heard one side of the argument to express a view as to whether the case of AB Bank Ltd is correctly decided. It seems to me that it is distinguishable on the basis that it related to Norwich Pharmacal orders, whereas what is here sought is a Bankers Trust order and on the basis that in MacKinnon v Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette Securities Corporation [1986] Ch 482 what was envisaged was that a Bankers Trust order might be one where there can be service out of the jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances and that those exceptional circumstances might include cases of hot pursuit. That is this type of case. As I say, I consider that there is a good arguable case that there is a head of jurisdiction under the necessary or proper party gateway. I should also say that it seems to me that there is a good arguable case that the Bankers Trust case can be said to relate wholly or principally to property within the jurisdiction on the basis of the argument which I have already identified, which is that the bitcoin are or were here and that the lex situs is where the owner resides or is domiciled. Accordingly, I consider there is a basis on which jurisdiction can be established.’
Butcher J
Unreported 21 December 2020
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – AB Bank Ltd, Off-Shore Banking Unit (Obu) v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc ComC 12-Aug-2016
Application to set aside Norwich Pharmacal Order: ‘The application raises the question whether the court has jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction of an application for the grant of a Norwich Pharmacal Order.’
Held: An order . .
Cited by:
Adopted – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .
Cited – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2021; Ref: scu.667435 br>