In Gary Jones v Persons Unknown, Lord Justice Nugee said he would allow a non-party's appeal under CPR r 40.9 against a Bitcoin recovery order, a point affecting non-parties to court cases.
Key facts
- Who: People and businesses who are not parties to a court case but may be directly affected by a judgment or order made in it, including in cryptocurrency fraud claims.
- From: 28 September 2026 (date of judgment)
- Source: Gary Jones v Persons Unknown [2026] EWCA Civ 1212
Background
Mr Gary Jones says he was defrauded of Bitcoin through an online platform called Extick Pro. He says he spent nearly £½ million buying 89.61616088 Bitcoin and transferred it to the platform. He brought a claim in the London Circuit Commercial Court against three classes of unknown people and one named company, Huobi Global Ltd, a Seychelles company.
Mr Jones obtained summary judgment on 5 September 2022 before a Deputy High Court Judge, and an order followed on 6 September 2022. Only Mr Jones was represented. The order required Huobi to deliver up Bitcoin from a wallet it controlled, called the tHEL wallet. Huobi took no part in the case but complied. It transferred 98.2 Bitcoin to Mr Jones's nominated wallet, an amount intended to cover the Bitcoin and a costs element. Huobi then appears to have reimbursed itself by deducting that amount from the account of Kyrrex Ltd, which had placed Bitcoin with Huobi that was allocated to the tHEL wallet.
Kyrrex was not a party. In November 2024 it applied under CPR r 40.9 to have the order set aside. Its case was that the Bitcoin transferred was not Mr Jones's and that there was no connection between the Bitcoin in the tHEL wallet and the fraud. By then Huobi had been struck off the Seychelles register of companies.
The question
CPR r 40.9 says a person who is not a party "but who is directly affected by a judgment or order may apply to have the judgment or order set aside or varied". The question was whether Kyrrex was "directly affected".
The decision
On 10 June 2025, in [2025] EWHC 1823 (Comm), His Honour Judge Richard Pearce, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dismissed the application. He held that Kyrrex was only indirectly affected, and that the application would in any event have failed because of delay and doubtful merits.
Kyrrex appealed with permission. The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Peter Jackson, Lord Justice Nugee and Lord Justice Foxton) heard the appeal on 24 June 2026. Lord Justice Nugee said he preferred Kyrrex's submissions and would allow the appeal.
The reasoning
The first-instance judge reasoned that Huobi did not need to use Bitcoin belonging to Kyrrex or its clients to satisfy the order, so the effect on Kyrrex was indirect. Lord Justice Nugee treated "directly affected" as a threshold or gateway issue and began reviewing earlier cases on the point. The text available ends there. The views of the other two judges, the court's final order, its full definition of "directly affected", and its conclusions on delay, merits and natural justice are therefore not reported here.
What this means for non-parties to a court case
- Rule 40.9 gives people who are not parties a route to apply to set aside or vary an order that directly affects them.
- Being "directly affected" is a threshold issue: an applicant must show it before the court considers whether to set aside or vary the order.
- The full judgment should be read for the court's reasoning. Anyone who thinks an order made in someone else's case affects them may wish to get legal advice promptly.
Sources
- Gary Jones v Persons Unknown [2026] EWCA Civ 1212, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 28 September 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/1212