Tulip Trading Ltd v Van Der Laan
It was arguable that the developers who control the software of a bitcoin network owe fiduciary duties to the owners of bitcoin on the network, so the claim could go to trial.
Facts
Tulip Trading, a company associated with Dr Craig Wright, claimed that it owned bitcoin worth several billion pounds, held at two addresses on bitcoin networks, but that it had lost access to the bitcoin when the private keys were deleted in a hack of Dr Wright's computer network. It sued the developers who maintained and controlled the software of the networks, claiming that they owed it fiduciary duties and a duty of care, and that they should write and implement a software patch to allow it to regain control of the bitcoin. The developers, many of whom were outside the jurisdiction, challenged the court's jurisdiction, and the judge held that there was no serious issue to be tried.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal allowed Tulip's appeal. Birss LJ said that it was arguable that the developers, who were a sufficiently defined group, in practice exercised control over the software and the networks, and had undertaken a role which meant that bitcoin owners entrusted their property to them, so that they might owe fiduciary duties to the owners, including a duty to act to protect their property, such as by introducing a patch where the owner had lost its keys. The question was a novel one which should be decided at trial on the facts, rather than on a summary application. The court did not decide that the duties existed. The case shows that the courts are willing to consider how existing equitable principles apply to new technology.
Related cases on technology, software, platforms and digital assets
- AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)
- Cartier International AG v British Telecommunications plc [2018] UKSC 28, [2018] 1 WLR 3259
- DPP v Lennon [2006] EWHC 1201 (Admin)
- Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2024] EWCA Civ 825
- Google France SARL v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, [2010] ECR I-2417
- Google LLC and Alphabet Inc v Commission (Google Shopping) Case C-48/22 P, EU:C:2024:726
- L'Oréal SA v eBay International AG Case C-324/09, [2011] ECR I-6011
- Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd [2020] SGCA(I) 02
Studying data protection and technology law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
