As with litigation, a successful arbitral award is a hollow victory if the responding party refuses to honour it, and enforcement proceedings are necessary. Given the international nature of arbitration, a number of things could go wrong at this stage and put a downer on a successful award. There are matters that ought to be considered strategically at the outset at contract stage and beyond to be ready to deal with a reluctant party after the award. It is therefore crucial to take certain steps at various stages to ensure you cross the finish line and reap those awards.
To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris’ Charlyn Cruz, please visit the Duane Morris International Arbitration Blog.
By Charlyn Cruz and Sam Laycock
A highly anticipated judgment has been passed down from the High Court, allowing for service via Non-Fungible Token (NFT) on a defendant as the sole means of service. Osbourne v Persons Unknown & Ors  EWHC 340 (KB) concerns Ms. Lavinia Osbourne, who sought to restrict the movement of two NFTs, which were misappropriated from her cryptoasset wallet in 2022. In the judgment, Mr Healy-Pratt (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) expanded on the comments made by Lavender J in his January 2023 judgment relating to the same case. Continue reading “High Court judgment handed down in highly anticipated case – Osbourne v Persons Unknown & Ors ”
In a previous blog, we looked at diversity, specifically in relation to gender parity, in the context of adjudication. Although we have come a long way in this arena, the issue of gender diversity still casts a long shadow. It should therefore be no surprise that the world of arbitration suffers much of the same problem.
Continue reading “The Glass Ceiling Looms Large – Gender Diversity in Arbitration”
The recent case of Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association For BSV & Ors  EWHC 667 (Ch) considered, amongst other things, the potential fiduciary duties owed to crypto owners by developers of crypto software. This judgment originated from an application from the Second to Twelfth, and Fifteenth and Sixteenth Defendants who challenged the jurisdiction of the Court. In this case, it was found that the Defendants did not owe a duty to help the Claimant recover its assets. At first glance, this seems like bad news for victims of crypto fraud. However, if you go beyond the substantive judgment and look at the judge’s obiter comments, the legal developments following the judgment (including the permission to appeal), and the details of the subsequent settlement of the claim, it is arguable that this judgment provides possible scope for an additional strategy for the recovery of crypto assets in the future. Continue reading “The Call of Duty (of Care) – the Potential Ramifications of the Tulip Trading case”