Stylised digital illustration showing a blockchain network connecting to the Royal Courts of Justice silhouette, symbolising the intersection of cryptocurrency technology and English fiduciary law.

Court of Appeal: Blockchain Developers Owe Fiduciary Duties to Crypto Owners (Cryptocurrency Litigation)

In Tulip Trading Ltd v van der Laan & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 83, the Court of Appeal held that software developers maintaining Bitcoin networks may arguably owe fiduciary duties to crypto owners, recognising a serious issue to be tried on whether developers’ control over blockchain code gives rise to duties of loyalty and care towards asset holders.

CCjs debt recovery london litigation lawyer solicitor barrister CFA no win no fee dba limitation period

Creditor’s Guide to Enforcement of Unpaid & Old Court Judgment Debts in the UK (2025)

Contrary to common belief, unpaid High Court & County Court judgments (CCJs) do not always become unenforceable after six years. With proper legal procedures and court permission, creditors can successfully enforce judgment debts many years old.

Manolete Case Study: Directors Found Liable for Misfeasance and Dishonest Assistance (Breach of Insolvency Duties)

The High Court held that Ronojoy Nag was liable for misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty after diverting company assets during insolvency, while his wife Amanda Nag was found liable for dishonest assistance and knowing receipt, ordering both to account for misapplied funds.

Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth

Success: Defence of Manolete Director Repayment Claim

In Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth [2024] EWHC 2294 (Ch), the High Court dismissed a £101,000 claim against the former CEO of One Legal Services. Manolete alleged that repayments to Mr Howarth’s director loan account during the firm’s CVA were unlawful preferences under the Insolvency Act 1986. Judge Barber disagreed, holding the payments were made in good faith.

Relief from Sanctions Applications / Civil Litigation / Expert London Litigation Lawyers / LEXLAW

When will the Court Grant Relief from Sanctions under CPR 3.9 (Civil Litigation)?

An application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 is available where a party has failed to comply with court deadlines or procedural rules. The court will apply the three-stage test from Denton v TH White Ltd, considering (1) the seriousness of the breach, (2) the reasons for the default, and (3) all the circumstances of the case. Relief must be sought promptly, as delay may undermine the application.

Manolete Case Study: Court Confirms Misfeasance Claims Procedure (Hybrid Insolvency Applications)

The High Court, per Chief ICC Judge Briggs, held that Manolete Partners could not advance misfeasance claims under section 212 Insolvency Act 1986 via an Insolvency Application, and instead had to pursue them under CPR Part 7, ordering payment of the full Part 7 issue fee despite procedural arguments about hybrid claims brought in insolvency proceedings.

Manolete Partners Plc v Sampson Coward LLP High Court Refuses Summary Judgment in £2m Escrow Breach Claim

Manolete Case Study: Court Refuses Summary Judgment in £2m Escrow Breach Claim (Breach of Undertaking)

The High Court refused Sampson Coward LLP’s application for summary judgment in Manolete Partners Plc v Sampson Coward LLP [2023] EWHC 37 (Ch), allowing a £2 million claim concerning alleged mismanagement of escrow accounts during UK Property and Land Specialists Ltd’s insolvency to proceed. The ruling highlights the complexity of fiduciary breaches in escrow arrangements and confirms assignees’ rights to pursue breach of undertaking claims under the Insolvency Act 1986.