Facts and the question before the court
Chechetkin, an English resident, used Kraken under a contract with Payward Ltd. Its terms provided for JAMS arbitration in San Francisco and California law. The disputed deposits totalled £613,000; the final losses he claimed were £608,534. The award in favour of the Payward companies included an injunction against continuing his English Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) proceedings. The companies sought recognition and enforcement in England.
Mandatory consumer protection
The court independently examined consumer status and the fairness of the clause. Applying California law had excluded Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) protection despite the contract’s close connection with the United Kingdom. The burden of the foreign procedure, the need for US lawyers and the actual exclusion of the FSMA claim also mattered. The court did not decide that the exchange had breached FSMA: the English claim had a prima facie basis and required adjudication.
The precise disposition
Paragraphs 166–169 of the judgment refuse recognition and enforcement under Arbitration Act 1996 section 103(3), on public-policy grounds. This is an English refusal to give effect to a foreign award within its jurisdiction, not annulment of the US arbitral award.
Arbitrability and the limits of the holding
Paragraphs 159–161 expressly accept that CRA and FSMA issues could in principle be resolved in arbitration. The particular clause, governing law and actual procedure mattered. The case does not prohibit consumer cryptoasset arbitration generally. Gao Zheyu illustrates a different intervention ground; the comparative guide separates party status, remedies and the enforcement country.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.