Cyberaxle Limited & Anor v Morteza Moosavi [2025] EWHC 1231 (Ch)

[2025] EWHC 1231 (Ch)CLAIM No. BL-2023-000162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
BUSINESS LIST (ChD)
Ian Karet OBE sitting as a Judge of the Chancery Division
Venue The Rolls Building 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane London EC4A 1NLDate 21 May 2025
Between
CYBERAXLE LIMITEDClaimantsVANESSA MANASSEHMORTEZA MOOSAVIDefendant
Mr. James Pickering KC (instructed by Blake Morgan) for ClaimantsMr. Manus Egan for DefendantHearing Hearing dates: 4, 5 and 6 February 2025
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 21 May 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authenticIan Karet:Introduction
[1]This is my judgment following the trial of an action of disputes arising out of cryptocurrency mining carried out by the Defendant at a time when he was an employee of the First Claimant and over his salary.[2]The First Claimant (“Cyberaxle”) was a company set up by the Second Claimant (“Ms Manasseh”) and the Defendant (“Mr Moosavi”) in September 2014. At that time Ms Manasseh was 70 and Mr Moosavi was 24, and they shared an interest in IT. Ms Manasseh was the sole shareholder, and the company had three directors, Ms Manasseh, Mr Moosavi and Julia Sturgeon, a bookkeeper who was friendly with and did work for Ms Manasseh.[3]Cyberaxle initially carried on a business in website design for customers known to Ms Manasseh. She did business development and was not paid. Mr Moosavi was the sole employee and was by 2017 paid £48,000 a year. Mrs Sturgeon did the bookkeeping through her company and was paid on an hourly rate.[4]In about 2017 Ms Manasseh started mining cryptocurrency with computing equipment which was set up in her flat in London. Mining is a process by which the miner uses their computer to create new blocks on a blockchain for which they may be paid in new cryptocurrency. It uses substantial amounts of electricity and the miner may spend more on energy than they make from the mining. Mr Moosavi set up the equipment and oversaw technical matters. Mr Moosavi held a wallet, a digital device or online account, into which cryptocurrency generated through the mining could be paid.[5]Soon after, Ms Manasseh entered into discussions with Nicky Katz, a next-door neighbour in her block of flats with whom she was friendly, about carrying on mining through his group Land Logical. Land Logical had a site in Dartford where electricity was generated from waste material. A cheaper source of electricity would reduce the cost of the mining process and offered the prospect of a greater return. An oral agreement was made in which a Land Logical company would buy the computer equipment required, and that would be set up at the site in Dartford where there was cheaper electricity. Mr Moosavi would carry out the technical work.[6]Ms Manasseh, Mr Moosavi, Mrs Sturgeon and Mr Katz were at the outset all friendly and they carried on their business with each other with some informality. The relationship between Ms Manasseh and Mr Moosavi was described as like that of a grandparent and grandchild. The issues that have arisen concern matters that are not well documented and are largely about money.[7]The price of the cryptocurrency Ethereum can vary significantly. It is currently worth more than it was at the time the events in the case occurred.[8]The first issue is about the division of the currency generated from this mining under the oral agreement. It is common ground that the currency generated would be stored in Mr Moosavi’s wallet and that Land Logical would be entitled to 75% of that. The dispute relates to the remaining 25%. The Claimants say that the 25% was for Cyberaxle. Mr Moosavi says that it was for him personally.[9]The second issue concerns the ownership of 40 Ethereum, a cryptocurrency, that Ms Manasseh says Mr Moosavi transferred to her from his wallet in 2021 but then wrongly back to himself. It is related to the first issue in that the currency was generated as part of the mining arrangement and the initial ownership will have an impact on the analysis.[10]The third issue concerns alleged overpayments by Mr Moosavi of his Cyberaxle salary.

The witnesses

[11]There were three witnesses for the Claimants and two for the Defendants. I describe the Claimants’ witnesses first.[12]Ms Vanessah Manasseh was born in 1945. She has been involved in various businesses and has an interest in IT. She became friendly with Mr Moosavi and set up Cyberaxle as a result of that. As I will describe below, she was not much concerned with the formalities of company business, which I view as a matter of inattention rather than as part of any plan to take advantage of Mr Moosavi. She has a strong personality and can clearly be forceful and determined. Mr Egan, for the Defendant, submitted that Ms Manasseh was overbearing and sought to control Mr Moosavi. I reject that submission.[13]Mrs Julia Sturgeon acted as bookkeeper for Ms Manasseh and Cyberaxle. She also does bookkeeping for Mr Katz. While originally friendly with both Ms Manasseh and Mr Moosavi there was a falling out when she was removed from the company, as I will describe below. Mr Egan criticised her on matters of bookkeeping and company management, but I found her evidence straightforward.[14]Mr Robert Goldstein gave evidence about the transfer of cryptocurrency. That was not challenged. His evidence concerned treatment of coins in a wallet given to him, and it was not key to any of the parties’ submissions.[15]Mr Nicky Katz gave evidence for the Defendant on the agreement for mining at Dartford. He owns a number of companies in the Land Logical Group, including Land Logical Dartford Limited. He was very certain about what had taken place. However, I concluded that he had taken Mr Moosavi’s side in the dispute and gave his evidence accordingly. I concluded it was not safe to rely on his evidence of the terms of the oral agreement on mining.[16]Mr Morteza Moosavi was born in 1990 and is now expert in IT matters. He came to London from Iran in 2006 and said that he was vulnerable and naïve when he met Ms Manasseh. I did not find him a convincing witness. He had a tendency to exaggerate and was not credible, in particular on matters concerning the salary dispute. I concluded that he was not reliable and that I should treat his evidence with caution.[17]Some of the evidence of events was contained in WhatsApp messages between those involved. There were also transcripts of two telephone calls based on recordings that Ms Manasseh made.

The mining dispute

[18]As I have said, Cyberaxle was set up in 2014. It was run on an informal basis with few if any minuted meetings or resolutions. Ms Manasseh ran the commercial side of the business and Mr Moosavi provided technical services. Mrs Sturgeon looked at financial matters. Ms Manasseh took the view that record keeping was not part of her role.[19]In 2017 an oral agreement was made that Land Logical would carry out mining on its own computer equipment. The Claimants’ case is that the agreement was between Land Logical Dartford Limited and Cyberaxle, and that the share between them was 75:25. In the alternative, the Claimants argued that if Mr Moosavi and not Cyberaxle was party to the agreement then Mr Moosavi was in breach of fiduciary and statutory duties to the company.[20]Ms Manasseh gave evidence that the arrangement for mining was to be with Cyberaxle and not Mr Moosavi. Mrs Sturgeon took the same line. Against that Mr Moosavi said that he had agreed directly with Mr Katz to carry out the mining work and that their deal had been, as he said in his witness statement, “sealed with a handshake”. Mr Katz was firm that he intended Mr Moosavi to be paid the 25% share for the mining work.[21]It became apparent when Mr Moosavi gave evidence that there had not in fact been a handshake and that Mr Moosavi’s evidence on this was not reliable. Mr Katz said that he made arrangements with Mr Moosavi, but as the I discuss below the contemporaneous documents show that the discussions of the plan included Ms Manasseh.[22]Mr Katz, Mr Moosavi and Ms Manasseh discussed the proposal in a 40-minute call on 7 September 2017. They covered how the mining would work, the technical challenges and whether to bring in third parties. Mr Moosavi knew much more than the others about technical matters, and he led on those. Ms Manasseh led on the commercial issues for Cyberaxle. Mr Katz summarised the position that “the headline numbers are that we would need£60,000 to produce one [Ethereum] coin a day of a current value of $400”.[23]In WhatsApp messages on 15 September 2017 between Mr Katz and Ms Manasseh, Mr Katz again suggested providing £60,000 for equipment on the basis that that would produce one $400 coin a day. He would provide a connection at Dartford and give Mr Moosavi 25% of the gross coin value for R&D, maintenance and other costs, and he would be responsible for any losses on the project. Ms Manasseh said that she needed to discuss this with Mrs Sturgeon and Mr Moosavi as directors of Cyberaxle.[24]Mr Moosavi disclosed a photograph of part of a letter dated 19 September 2017 which purports to be from Ms Manasseh to Mr Katz. The first paragraph started:
“in CryptoCurrency mining.”
It describes an arrangement to set up 16 mining rigs that “should generate approx. 4800 mh/s which should mine approx. 1 coin per day”. It says that “For clarification purposes, Morteza will receive 25% of the coins mined in any one period, and these will be transferred to his own secure wallet on a regular basis to be agreed. As for myself, when everything is set up and in working order, I would very much like to add some rigs of my own.” The letter goes on to discuss transport to the Dartford site for Mr Moosavi. The disclosure is one page only and was not signed.[25]Ms Manasseh said that she had not written the letter and that she did not know what “mh/s” meant. (It stands for megahashes per second, which is a measure of computational power in cryptocurrency mining.) She would have signed a letter. At the trial Mr Katz produced a copy of the letter and said that it had been posted in an envelope under his door at the time. He had only received it in hard copy. That did not advance matters as to the authorship as it appeared that either Mr Moosavi or Ms Manasseh often visited Mr Katz and might have delivered it. I accept that Ms Manasseh would not have started a letter in the way this one was and her evidence of lack of knowledge on technical matters. I conclude that Mr Moosavi wrote that letter.[26]In October 2017 Cyberaxle investigated the prices of mining equipment and Ms Manasseh reported on that to Mr Katz.[27]On 11 November 2017 Mr Katz said that he would get his lawyers to draw up a contract “so everyone knows their responsibility and shares etc.”. However, that did not happen. He also messaged that day about taking Mr Moosavi to Dartford to set up the mining rigs.[28]In November and December 2017 and January 2018 Cyberaxle sent invoices to Land Logical Dartford Limited for just over £61,312.74 computing equipment (net of VAT). Between November 2017 and February 2018 Cyberaxle purchased mining equipment. It is not clear whether the Cyberaxle invoices were for a committed order or indicative of prices that might be available.[29]On 17 January 2018 Mr Katz messaged Ms Manasseh:
“Simple simple recap agreement to invest 60k net of VAT, approx 1 coin a day quoted, agreement to give 25% of coin revenue to M or CA (whoever it is).”
This was in the context of installing Ms Manasseh’s two rigs at Dartford, and it is likely to have been after the Land Logical agreement was made.[30]In January 2018 there was email correspondence with a third party who might have been interested to be involved in mining with rigs at the Dartford site. Mrs Sturgeon sent her a financial model including the costs of the mining rigs, rent and electricity which provided a line “25% of value of coin to Cyberaxle for managing”.[31]On 5 February 2018 Mrs Sturgeon wrote to Mr Katz setting out the costs of mining rigs for Land Logical, bringing down the price proposed by Cyberaxle to keep within his £60,000 (net of VAT) budget.[32]On 13 March 2018 Mr Moosavi created a WhatsApp group called “LL Crypto Mining” with Mr Katz, Ms Manasseh and himself as members. This group discussed progress of mining at Land Logical. It appears that mining was about to start. Messages from about a week later show that there were occasional issues with temperature control in the room where the computer equipment was housed. Mr Moosavi reported regularly how many coins had been mined, and there was general discussion of other issues such as how to buy and transfer cryptocurrency. The messages produced on disclosure ran up to 14 January 2022.[33]In May 2018 Ms Manasseh gave each of Mr Moosavi and Mrs Sturgeon 30 shares in the company.[34]Messages from Mr Moosavi to Ms Manasseh on 14 and 18 June 2018 show Mr Moosavi asking her to buy a battery for a fan at Dartford and reporting on a request from Mr Katz’s partner for more information on the data which Mr Moosavi had provided.[35]Mr Moosavi was travelling from London to Dartford during this period, and he was spending significant time at Land Logical. The LL Crypto Mining group contains a message from 18 April 2018 in which Mr Katz confirms that he would hire a car for Mr Moosavi. There was disclosed an invoice from Land Logical Dartford Limited to Cyberaxle dated 9 July 2018 for one month’s rental of a car that Mr Moosavi used for the travel. Disclosure also contained receipts for petrol form which Mr Moosavi claimed reimbursement. Mr Moosavi continued to be paid his Cyberaxle salary.[36]On 3 August 2020 in a chat group called “Cyberaxle” between Mr Moosavi and Ms Manasseh he sent her a table with columns showing the amounts of cryptocurrency mined in the period January to July 2020, the amount sold, the price per coin, total price and “CYAX (25%)”, which records 25% of the total mined. Ms Manasseh said that Mr Katz’s business partner had wanted a daily record of the results of the mining and that they produced figures weekly.[37]Ms Manasseh said that Mr Katz told her that mining continued at Dartford until electricity prices rose in September 2022.

Discussion

[38]Lewison, 8th Edition states at paragraph 10.15, extrinsic evidence is admissible to identify the parties to a contract by way of exception to the parol evidence rule. The rule applies to written agreements; the agreement here is oral.[39]The parties agreed that the relevant law on ascertaining the terms of an oral contract is set out in Lewison at 3.190:
“In Maggs v Marsh, Smith LJ, approving the equivalent passage in the previous edition of this book, said: “…Determining the terms of an oral contract is a question of fact. Establishing the facts will usually, as here, depend upon the recollections of the parties and other witnesses. The accuracy of those recollections may be tested and elucidated by things said and done by the parties or witnesses after the agreement has been concluded. Receiving evidence of such words or actions does not mean that the judge is losing sight of his task of deciding what the parties agreed at the time of the contract. It is simply helping him to decide whose recollection is right. It is not surprising to me that the editorof Lewison should observe that there is nothing in the authorities to prevent the court from looking at post-contract actions of the parties. As a matter of principle, I can see every reason why such evidence should be received.” “…Determining the terms of an oral contract is a question of fact. Establishing the facts will usually, as here, depend upon the recollections of the parties and other witnesses. The accuracy of those recollections may be tested and elucidated by things said and done by the parties or witnesses after the agreement has been concluded. Receiving evidence of such words or actions does not mean that the judge is losing sight of his task of deciding what the parties agreed at the time of the contract. It is simply helping him to decide whose recollection is right. It is not surprising to me that the editorof Lewison should observe that there is nothing in the authorities to prevent the court from looking at post-contract actions of the parties. As a matter of principle, I can see every reason why such evidence should be received.”
[40]In my view that approach is suitable to identify a party to an oral agreement, using the evidence available, taking into account what the parties (and appropriate witnesses) said and did beforehand and testing that against the evidence of what happened after.[41]It is not clear on the evidence I was shown exactly when the mining agreement was made. I find that it was concluded by the end of 2017 between Land Logical Dartford Limited and Cyberaxle. That is for the following reasons.[42]The documents that I was shown dated before 2018 are not determinative. The witnesses have taken the positions I have described. Mr Katz had said in September 2017 that payment would be made to Mr Moosavi. Ms Manasseh had said that the matter needed to be discussed with the Cyberaxle directors.[43]The documents from 2018 on show that Ms Manasseh understood that the arrangement was for Cyberaxle. Mrs Sturgeon’s email to the third party supports her view that the arrangement would be with the company. Mr Katz’s 17 January 2018 reference to payment of “25% of coin revenue to M or CA (whoever it is)” indicates that he was concerned about how the payment would be made and was not saying that it was for Mr Moosavi.[44]Once the mining started, the parties behaved and reported on the basis that it was a Cyberaxle arrangement. Ms Manasseh’s involvement in discussions about the mining activities is consistent with Cyberaxle being the party, as is Mr Moosavi’s reporting to Cyberaxle, in particular by way of the table recording the “CYAX” 25%. The payment of car hire and expenses are also in line with Cyberaxle being the party. If the company had not been the contracting party, then there would have been no reason to involve Cyberaxle to that extent and Mr Moosavi would not have needed to communicate in such detail with Ms Manasseh.[45]Mr Moosavi suggested in evidence that he checked with Ms Manasseh what to say to third parties and how to word emails. She accepted that at the start of the business in 2014 that was the case. However, matters had moved on by 2018 and, the level of communications are more consistent with the company being the relevant party than with Mr Moosavi checking what to say. I have also found that Mr Moosavi composed the letter to Mr Katz in September 2017. That was without reference to Ms Manasseh.[46]As I have found that Cyberaxle was the party, I do not need to consider questions whether Mr Moosavi owed director’s or fiduciary duties to Cyberaxle to account for the coins paid to him for his work. The coins always belonged to Cyberaxle and were paid to him as a matter of convenience.

The Ethereum dispute

[47]The second issue concerned disputed dealings with 40 Ethereum coins. The Claimants’ position is as follows. Ms Manasseh had made a director’s loan to Cyberaxle of about £4,680. In April 2020 it was agreed that the loan would be paid off by the transfer of 40 Ethereum then in Mr Moosavi’s wallet. There was no documentation about the decision or minutes of a meeting at which that was agreed.[48]In April 2021 Ms Manasseh followed up on the transfer, but nothing was done.[49]In May and June 2021 Ms Manasseh and Mrs Sturgeon exchanged emails about bookkeeping matters. One question was whether the 40 Ethereum had been used to discharge the loan. On 15 June 2021 Mrs Sturgeon confirmed that was the case.[50]On 22 June 2021 the company’s accountants sent Ms Manasseh and Mrs Sturgeon two emails containing draft accounts for the year ending 30 September 2020 and a summary of certain matters, including the sale of the Ethereum. Mrs Sturgeon forwarded those to Mr Moosavi asking for his approval, which he gave that day.[51]A short time after Mr Moosavi persuaded Ms Manasseh to dispense with the services of Mrs Sturgeon’s company as a bookkeeper on the basis that it would be cheaper for him to do the work. He changed the accounting system and took control of the finances. Ms Manasseh said that after this she was not aware of what was happening in the company. Mrs Sturgeon was upset by this and the witnesses were not all straightforward with one another about matters. For example, Ms Manasseh said that Mr Moosavi told her to lie to Mrs Sturgeon to get her to return her company bank debit card because the bank had cancelled it. The bank had not done so.[52]In July 2021 Mr Moosavi transferred his shares back to Ms Manasseh and resigned as a director. He said that this was in return for an increase in salary from £48,000 to £200,000. Up to November 2021 he paid himself a monthly salary on that basis. He wanted to buy a property and needed to show a greater income to secure a mortgage. Ms Manasseh was aware that he wanted to buy a property and did introduce him to a mortgage broker. However, she maintained that she was not aware that he was taking a substantially greater salary.[53]In October 2021 Ms Manasseh spent four weeks in hospital including time in ICU with sepsis. She was unwell on her return home. Ms Manasseh said that on 1 December 2021 Mr Moosavi asked Ms Manasseh to print off, sign and scan back to him a letter confirming his salary. She did what Mr Moosavi had asked so without considering it. Later that day she understood that the letter was to support a mortgage application on the basis that Mr Moosavi had traded his “company share” (as it says) for a salary of £200,000 a year. Ms Manasseh telephoned Mr Moosavi that day and told him not to use the letter and to call his mortgage broker to say that he would not. On 2 December 2021 the broker confirmed both to Ms Manasseh and Mr Moosavi that the letter would not be used.[54]Mr Moosavi said that Ms Manasseh had written the 1 December letter. She said that she would not have written the date as “Date: 1st December 2021”. I accept Ms Manasseh’s evidence on this.[55]On 3 December 2021 Mr Moosavi went to Ms Manasseh’s flat and transferred 40 Ethereum and one Bitcoin into her wallet and gave her passwords to use the wallet. On 31 December Mr Moosavi paid his salary on the basis that it was £200,000 annually.[56]Mrs Sturgeon resigned as a director of the company on 4 December 2021.[57]On 16 January 2022 Ms Manasseh found out that the Ethereum and Bitcoin had been transferred out of her wallet on 5 December 2021. On 19 January 2022 Mr Moosavi said that he had made the transfer in retaliation for Ms Manasseh withdrawing her agreement to the salary letter which he intended to use to secure a mortgage. On 22 January 2022 Mr Moosavi refused to return the Ethereum to Ms Manasseh.[58]Mr Moosavi’s position is that he was the owner of the 40 Ethereum as that was part of the 25% to which he and not Cyberaxle was entitled. He did not dispute that he had transferred the coins into and then out of Ms Manasseh’s wallet in December 2021. His position was that, as the coins were his, the transfer to Cyberaxle was ineffective.

Discussion

[59]It is common ground that digital assets attract property rights for the purposes of this claim; see D’Aloia v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch) at paragraph 5.[60]I have found that Cyberaxle and not Mr Moosavi were entitled to the 25% share of the currency mined. I accept that Mr Moosavi transferred the Ethereum to Ms Manasseh and then back to himself. The coins were not his property and Mr Moosavi was not entitled to take them from her.

The salary dispute

[61]The third dispute is in respect of the alleged overpayment of Mr Moosavi’s salary. I have described some of the relevant matters above.[62]On 31 January 2022 Mr Moosavi resigned as an employee of Cyberaxle and asked for his monthly salary. No salary was paid. Ms Manasseh accepts that Mr Moosavi is entitled to his salary based on an annual salary of £48,000 but not £200,000.[63]The parties disagree whether the increased salary which Mr Moosavi took was ever agreed. Ms Manasseh and Mrs Sturgeon said that it was not. Mr Moosavi says that it was and that throughout the period that it was being paid at that level Ms Manasseh had access to the company bank accounts at least up to 19 October 2021 and could have seen the position. That October date is the time Ms Manasseh went into hospital; Mr Moosavi asked her for her company debit card as he no longer had one following his resignation as a director.[64]Cyberaxle adopted the Model Articles of Association set out in Schedule 1 of the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008/3229. By paragraph 3 of the Articles the directors are responsible for the management of the company’s business, for which purpose they may exercise all the powers of the company.[65]By paragraph 7 of the Articles the general rule about decision-making by directors is that any decision of the directors must be either a majority decision at a meeting or a decision taken in accordance with article 8.[66]Paragraph 8 of the Articles provides for a unanimous decision-making procedure inrelation to decisions made by written resolution.[67]There is no relevant minute or resolution of Cyberaxle that shows the matter was resolved or agreed in accordance with the Model Articles.[68]Mrs Sturgeon said that the company did not have enough income to support such a rise. The Profit and Loss stated for the year ended September 2021 showed a turnover of just over £87,100. Salaries were just over £93,500 and the company made a loss after tax of just over £20,900.[69]The transcript of a telephone conversation between Ms Manasseh and Mr Moosavi on 3 December 2021 shows Ms Manasseh challenging Mr Moosavi about the increase in pay, denying that she knew about it and pointing out that the company could not afford it. Mr Moosavi accepted that Mrs Sturgeon did not know about the salary rise and asked Ms Manasseh not to tell her.[70]Mr Moosavi said that Ms Manasseh agreed to increase his salary as part of a settlement of a dispute over the ownership of the 40 Ethereum that he alleged were his and should not have been brought into the accounts of Cyberaxle. Mr Moosavi said that he first found out about the transfer of the coins in 2019 and that this led to a “running battle” between Ms Manasseh and Mrs Sturgeon over the issue because Mr Moosavi thought that Mrs Sturgeon was “stealing my coins”. He said that this was why Ms Manasseh cancelled Mrs Sturgeon’s bank cards and, further, that Ms Manasseh admitted that during a meal with Mr Katz at a Japanese restaurant in Maida Vale in September 2021. Ms Manasseh, he said, agreed the increased salary and he had agreed not to bring proceedings or involve the police in the matter of the coins.[71]Mr Katz agreed there had been a meal at which there was a dispute over the 40 Ethereum and that Ms Manasseh agreed that they were Mr Moosavi’s.

Discussion

[72]The evidence of Ms Manasseh and Mrs Sturgeon on this issue, in particular as to the financial position of the company and the transcript of the telephone call, was strong. There is no evidence of any agreement by the directors or shareholders on this matter. Mr Moosavi accepted that Mrs Sturgeon did not know about the rise.[73]Ms Manasseh did sign the salary letter for Mr Moosavi as requested on 1 December 2021 but withdrew her confirmation the same day and had Mr Moosavi ensure that the mortgage broker confirmed that he would not use the letter for Mr Moosavi’s intended purpose.[74]There are a number of problems with the evidence of Mr Moosavi and Mr Katz. First, Mr Moosavi had by September 2021 approved the accounting treatment of the 40 Ethereum as evidenced by his agreement to Mrs Sturgeon’s email in June 2021. Second, a salary agreement should have been made before September 2021, because Mr Moosavi was already drawing it by then. Third, Mr Moosavi’s evidence that the salary was agreed is inconsistent with his agreement in December 2021 to call the mortgage broker to retract the letter.[75]I also note that there was a lack of clarity about the alleged restaurant meal. The LL Crypto Mining group shows messages about a meal in September 2021 in which the participants, all in very good humour, agreed to have a take away rather than go to a restaurant.[76]I find that there was no agreement to pay Mr Moosavi an increased salary and that it was overpaid from August to December 2021. Mr Moosavi is owed his salary for January 2022.

Conclusion

[77]The Claimants succeed in their claims to ownership of the cryptocurrency under the mining agreement, the 40 Ethereum and Mr Moosavi’s salary. I will hear counsel as to the form of order.