Go to content
${facet.Name} (${facet.TotalResults})
${item.Icon}
${ item.ShortDescription }
${ item.SearchLabel?.ViewModel?.Label }
See all results
${facet.Name} (${facet.TotalResults})
${item.Icon}
${ item.ShortDescription }
${ item.SearchLabel?.ViewModel?.Label }
See all results

Offshore Litigation Blog

Newspaper rolled up as a megaphone

${totalItems} results

${customFilterHeading} Showing ${showingItems} of ${totalItems} results ${searchTerm}
${facet.Name} (${facet.TotalResults})
Reset
Chain breaking
A Bit too insecure
In its recent decision in Tulip Trading Limited v Bitcoin Association for BSV the English High Court refused to accept Bitcoin as security for costs.
Searching for trust in a trustless system: latest crypto case explores the limits of proprietary rights
In the recent decision in Wang v Darby the English High Court considered whether the defendant held cryptocurrency on trust for the claimant and whether the claimant, therefore, had a proprietary right over the cryptocurrency and could retain a proprietary injunction over it. Ultimately the High Court found that whilst cryptocurrency could form the subject matter of a trust, no trust arose in the circumstances and as such, there was no basis for proprietary claims or a proprietary injunction. But the High Court did continue the worldwide freezing injunction against the defendant to protect the claimant’s personal claims.
Cryptocurrencies are property – A benchmark ruling of the New Zealand High Court
On 8 April 2020, in the case of Ruscoe & Moore v Cryptopia Ltd (in liquidation) (the Company), the New Zealand High Court ruled on an application by the liquidators (the Liquidators) of the Company to determine the precise nature of the cryptocurrencies held by the Company.
${ item.Title }
${ item.Description }