Su v. Atom Holdings, 2025 BCCA 199

Craig Dennis, K.C., Owen James and Ray Power acted in this appeal for the successful respondents, the liquidators of a Cayman Islands-based cryptocurrency platform. The liquidators had obtained ex parte Mareva and asset preservation orders, which were then upheld by the chambers judge at a set-aside hearing. The orders arose from concern that a former director of the cryptocurrency platform had diverted millions of dollars worth of cryptocurrency.

The Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge had not erred in the legal test applied in finding no material non-disclosure at the ex parte hearings, nor in exercising his discretion, in the alternative, to maintain the ex parte orders.

This case emphasizes that at a set-aside hearing, it is the role of the chambers judge to determine whether evidence would have been material to the ex parte decision. Such a determination is entitled to significant deference on appeal.

The full decision can be viewed here: Su v. Atom Holdings, 2025 BCCA 199.