Wealthy Online Investor in Bitcoin Futures a 'Consumer'

8th August 2019 By Arman Khosravi

Can someone who trades in cryptocurrency futures or other sophisticated products via an online platform be viewed as a consumer? In a crucial decision for the investment sector, the High Court has answered that question in the affirmative.

The case concerned a woman of substantial means who, on a leveraged basis, traded in bitcoin futures online. She sued the Cypriot company that operated the relevant platform for losses she was alleged to have suffered after her account was blocked and she was refused permission to withdraw funds.

The company, however, argued that the English courts had no jurisdiction to rule on her claim. It pointed to a clause in the contract she had signed before she first traded on the platform, by which she agreed that all disputes and controversies arising would be dealt with exclusively by the courts of Cyprus.

The woman argued that that clause was of no effect because she was a consumer, within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, which governs the jurisdiction and enforcement of civil and commercial matters between EU member states. The company, however, responded that trading in bitcoin futures requires specialist knowledge and skill and is inherently a non-consumer activity.

In preferring the woman’s arguments, however, the Court found that her trading activity was that of a well-heeled individual playing with some of her surplus funds in the hope of making substantial gains. Observing that wealthy consumers are consumers nonetheless, the Court noted that the large sums of money involved did not change her status. She was a private individual and end user and she had not suggested to the company that she was a professional investor running a business. The Court accepted jurisdiction to hear her claim.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...