As technology continues to rapidly advance, the law must play catch up. Greg and Max participated in this panel discussion to offer their perspective on how digital assets such as cryptocurrencies have been received within the legal and regulatory framework of the English jurisdiction.

Greg Pooler, a Legal Director within Sherrards’ commercial disputes team, advises clients in relation to disputes involving digital assets as part of his commercial fraud and asset recovery practice.  Greg provided a comprehensive overview of the legal position under English law as to the treatment and classification of digital assets.

Greg observed that: “Like many of the other jurisdictions represented on the panel, there is currently no coherent legal architecture specific to digital assets in the English jurisdiction.”  Unless digital assets exhibited the characteristics of financial products that fell within the perimeter of pre-existing financial services regulation (and in practice few digital assets do so), the sector was largely unregulated and investors in digital assets were afforded very limited protection.  Notwithstanding these deficiencies from the legislative perspective, the common law has made significant strides in accommodating digital assets within the conceptual framework of English property law, albeit the decisions to date struggle to reconcile the characteristics of certain digital assets with the traditional categories of property that the law currently recognises.

Max Marmor, a member of the Commercial Property team where we see a cross over in this area in terms of real estate investment, reflected on several key cases that have been decided by the English High Court in recent years.  These cases have grappled with questions concerning the classification and treatment of digital assets and the legal remedies that are available to litigants seeking to assert their rights over, or entitlement to, such assets. According to Max: “The English High Court has shown itself to be pragmatic and responsive to the evolving crypto industry. Recent decisions suggest England can be the appropriate jurisdiction for claims that often lack centralisation.”

One case Max was keen to highlight to the conference audience in Mauritius and those tuning in online was the seminal decision of the High Court in AA v Persons Unknown [1] in which the Court for the first time recognised that Bitcoin should be classified as property,  entitling the applicant in that case to freezing injunction relief. Greg emphasised the significance of this decision and referred the panel to a recent 500-page Law Commission report on virtual assets containing the radical suggestion that English law should recognise a third category of property called “digital objects”. This would capture the nuanced and idiosyncratic nature of certain types of digital assets that the current property law framework is ill-equipped to deal with.

Benita Elisa, founder of Wakanda 4.0,  which organised the Cryptoverse Summit and who moderated the event added: “Hearing from this international panel really helped set the scene for our event we believe that Metaverse platforms have the potential to transform how, when and where companies interact with their customers, as extended reality platforms enable businesses to deliver new experiences and provide information in new ways.

Greg and Max were joined on the panel by other members of the Alliott Global Alliance (alliottglobal.com) led by Ashveen Gopee from Lex Frontier,  Mauritius; Diego Nunes from Estudio Nunes & Associados, Argentina; Audra White from Platt Cheema Richmond, USA;  Anthony Marrin from H.Y.Leung, Hong Kong;  Kenneth Muhangi from KTA Advocates, Uganda  and Songul Top from STA Legal, France. Each offered unique insights and expertise on their countries’ varying approaches to the crypto industry. 

The recording of the Cryptoverse Summit and the Alliott Global Alliance panel with Sherrards can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdKXP0FvhC0&t=11877s&ab_channel=WakandaNews

Greg speaks 2:52.10 and Max is at 3:14.30.

[1] AA v Persons Unknown who demanded Bitcoin on 10th and 11th October 2019 and others [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)

 

 

 

Sherrards’ Real Estate Litigation and Residential teams worked together to help our client to get vacant possession.

Vacant possession means the property must be empty on the day you complete your purchase or sale of it. 

The £5million property in Kensington had been sold subject to contract, however, there was a tenant in the property who was refusing to leave which was jeopardising the sale.

Proceedings were issued in the High Court.

Michael Lewis and his team worked hand in hand with our Residential Real Estate department in order to provide vacant possession and a successful outcome for our client and the sale of their property.

The deceased was accused of professional negligence and being part of a conspiracy to defraud in relation to the sale and purchase of a multi-million-pound yacht.

The Sherrards Dispute Resolution and Fraud department successfully challenged the claim, which was rightfully dismissed.

There was no suggestion of any wrongdoing on the part of the deceased, whose reputation was and remains protected.

The team defended this multi-million-pound fraud matter.

To find out more, please contact Paul Marmor. 

The team issued High Court proceedings with an injunction hearing which was successful.

Barney Laurence and his team were able to secure default judgment avoiding significant expenditure for ongoing legal proceedings for our client which they would have stood little to no prospects of recovering from the former employee.

The Court found that materials produced in the course of discovery (following an order in the States), could be used in an arbitration being held in London against Dreymoor Fertilisers Overseas PTE Ltd. Discovery had been obtained in order to assist the claimants in pursuing proceedings in multiple jurisdictions.

The judgment paved the way to allow the discovery to be put into evidence.

Click here for the full Judgment. 

One of the founders and principal shareholders sought to declare unilateral independence and break away from the company. They were in breach of all covenants, restraint of trade and the shareholder agreement, to set up a rival organisation and attempt to take over a number of the company’s overseas offices, staff and clients.

This led to High Court proceedings supported by injunctive relief on a global scale. The team were successful and the case was settled in our clients favour and their client base was protected.

To find out about more similar case, please contact Paul Marmor. 

The matter proceeded to a final hearing and after some 18 months of litigation a Judgment was given in our client’s favour, resulting in them recovering not only the recruitment fee but also statutory compensation and contractual interest.

The team also resolved an important ‘passing off’ issue for the same client following a competitor setting up a recruitment company with a very similar name.  The competitor was forced to change its name, website and materials within a week of our involvement. 

The client was referred to the Recruitment team by their Recruitment Directors Lunch Club (RDLC) networking group. The successful outcome of this matter has been widely publicised via the RDLC network, resulting in further instructions and recognition from the group.

To find out about more successful cases, please contact Barney Laurence. 

The Sherrards Dispute Resolution department led by Paul Marmor were retained by an international hotel group that was facing a very aggressive claim by a British clearing bank, which was looking to enforce its guarantees and security over the hotel group and its assets in the UK.

We were able to successfully resist the claim and, indeed, to assist the hotel group in procuring refinancing on much more favourable terms.

How often have we wandered into a bakery asking them to make a celebration cake, personalised to suit the occasion. Would you ever consider that such a request could give rise to 7 years of litigation, culminating in a recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights?

No, me neither.

But this is precisely what happened when Gareth Lee visited Ashers Bakery, a family run bakery in Belfast, with a request that they make him a cake with a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street and the slogan ‘Support Gay Marriage’. The bakery refused to fulfil the order because they felt it contravened their Christian beliefs.

Mr Lee, a gay rights activist, argued that by refusing to fulfil his order, the bakery had discriminated against him on grounds of his sexual orientation. Mr Lee, backed by the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland issued a claim for discrimination. He also argued that the refusal infringed his political beliefs because at the time he made the cake order, Northern Ireland did not legally recognise same sex marriages.

Ashers, backed by the Christian Institute in Northern Ireland, fought the case on the basis they maintained that they had not refused to fulfil the order because Mr Lee was gay, but because the order requested was contrary to their religious beliefs.

What followed was a series of hearings and appeals. At the initial hearing, the Court found in favour of Mr Lee and held that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation and his political beliefs. The Judge acknowledged that Ashers had “genuine and deeply held” religious views, but said their business was not above the law. The compensation to be paid to Mr Lee was £500.

Ashers appealed to the Court of Appeal but were unsuccessful.

They went one step further and appealed to the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the UK, in 2018. On this occasion, the Court ruled in favour of the bakery, effectively confirming that the owners of the bakery had to retain their rights to freedom of expression and religion.  

Mr Lee then took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, but they ruled his case inadmissible, suggesting that not all avenues have been exhausted in the UK. It remains to be seen if Mr Lee will pursue this further.

It is a case that has divided opinion. You can see the respective positions, as Mr Lee understandably felt his rights and beliefs have been infringed, but likewise, the bakery felt that their rights and beliefs would equally have been infringed had they fulfilled the order. In such a case, how do you decide whose rights and beliefs should be given preference over the other? Does one of set of rights and beliefs have greater value over the other? Possibly, a material factor in this dispute may have been the fact that the bakery always argued that they were not refusing to serve Mr Lee because of his sexual orientation; rather it was just a refusal to fulfil that specific order.

And, in case you were wondering, another bakery agreed to make the exact cake that Ashers refused to make, so despite the outcome of the latest instalment of the litigation, it could be said that Mr Lee was still able to have his cake and was able to eat it!

To find out more, please contact Mark Fellows.

It’s no surprise the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on retailers and the sector as a whole. As many retailers were forced to close during both lockdowns, they have been unable to keep up with their rental payments, and as customers continue to self-isolate and stay at home footfall has been significantly lower.

On the flip side, landlords have struggled too with some not receiving payments from tenants, and the loss of protection following the implementation of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (the CA 2020) means they are unable to rely on contractual rights to forfeit commercial leases by peaceable entry, or by issuing court proceedings.

Click here for the full article in The Retailer (page 42) for an overview of the changes applied to the law due to Covid-19.

To find out more, please speak to Mike Lewis.