Stephen & Co

On the court record

A commercial and enforcement-litigation record engaging an emerging question of cryptocurrency as consideration, summary judgment and illegality under the Moneylenders Act 1951, and stays of execution intersecting with family proceedings.

Stephen & Co is recorded in the corpus in commercial and civil litigation, including a matter engaging a novel question about digital assets. In a High Court appeal in which the firm acted for the respondent, the underlying dispute concerned whether a friendly loan of RM70,000 had been repaid through the transfer of 50 Litecoins to the lender's exchange account, and whether the magistrate below had erred in treating the cryptocurrency as being of no value; the point argued was that cryptocurrency is a digital asset with a market value capable of amounting to valuable consideration. In a second High Court matter the firm acted for the defence in resisting an application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012, where the issues were whether the plaintiff had satisfied the preliminary requirements, whether the defendants had raised triable issues, and whether the underlying arrangement was tainted by illegality as unlicensed moneylending contrary to the Moneylenders Act 1951 — the defence also invoking settlement, estoppel and allegations of duress. A third High Court matter placed the firm on the plaintiff's side in an appeal concerning a stay of garnishee proceedings, where an interim maintenance order and a pending variation application in the Family Court raised the relevant test for a stay, the paramountcy of a child's welfare, and the risk of duplicity of action leading to inconsistent judgments of courts of concurrent jurisdiction. Across these matters the firm is recorded handling commercial and enforcement disputes in which the arguments range from the emerging law on cryptocurrency as consideration, through the summary-judgment and illegality questions that decide moneylending disputes, to the discretionary considerations that govern a stay of execution where family proceedings are on foot. In the moneylending matter the court weighed whether mere assertions could amount to credible evidence of a triable defence, and whether alleged excessive interest rates rendered the transaction illegal under the Moneylenders Act 1951.