Legal News

Stay of NFT consumer claim granted in favour of New York arbitration under AA 1996, s 9 (Soleymani v Nifty Gateway)

Published on: 11 April 2022
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Stay of NFT consumer claim granted in favour of New York arbitration under AA 1996, s 9 (Soleymani v Nifty Gateway)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What was the factual background to the dispute?
  • New York arbitration
  • What issues were before the English Court?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Did the English Court have jurisdiction under CJJA 1982, s 15B?
  • Was Nifty entitled to a stay of proceedings under AA 1996, s 9 and/or the court's inherent jurisdiction?
  • Case details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: In one of the first English decisions relating to non-fungible tokens (NFTs), the English High Court stayed a consumer's claim for a declaration that an arbitration agreement in an auction platform's terms of use was unfair. While the court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the non-arbitration aspects of the claim, proceedings were stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). It was common ground that the consumer was a party to the arbitration agreement providing for arbitration in New York. Although it was disputed whether the arbitration agreement could be enforced against the consumer, issues going to the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement were to be considered in the New York arbitration. Written by Simon Chapman, partner and Olga Dementyeva, associate at Herbert Smith Freehills. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents