Ramona ANG v Reliantco Investments Ltd

Facts:

• Ms. Ang, an individual of substantial means, invested in Bitcoin futures through the UFX platform on a leveraged basis.
• Ms. Ang claimed breaches of data protection obligations by Reliantco in connection with her UFX account.
• Reliantco challenged the jurisdiction of the court to try Ms. Ang's claims.
• It was agreed that if Ms. Ang was correct on either ground, Reliantco's challenge to jurisdiction would fail.
• Ms. Ang lacked education or training in cryptocurrency investment or trading.
• Ms. Ang opened her UFX account with Reliantco in January 2017.
• Reliantco classified Ms. Ang as a retail client under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID).
• The court considered the definition of 'consumer' under EU law and relevant case law on consumer contracts.

Issues:

1. Whether Ms. Ang's contract with Reliantco falls within Article 17 of Brussels (Recast) as a consumer contract.

2. Whether Reliantco's challenge to jurisdiction based on Ms. Ang not being a consumer would succeed if Ms. Ang was not contracting as a consumer.

3. Whether jurisdiction over data protection claims under the GDPR applies separately from consumer contract jurisdiction.

Holding:

• The court held that Ms. Ang's contract with Reliantco fell within Article 17 of Brussels (Recast) as a consumer contract.
• Reliantco's challenge to jurisdiction failed entirely and was dismissed.
• The court found that data protection claims under the GDPR do not affect the jurisdiction determined by the consumer contract.

Reasoning:

• The court analyzed the definition of 'consumer' under EU law and relevant case law to determine Ms. Ang's status.
• The court rejected the argument that speculative investment could not be considered a consumer activity.
• The court found that Ms. Ang contracted as a consumer with Reliantco, thus establishing jurisdiction under Article 17 of Brussels (Recast).
• The court clarified that data protection claims under the GDPR did not impact the jurisdiction established by the consumer contract.

Disposition:

• The court dismissed Reliantco's challenge to jurisdiction and held that Ms. Ang's claims could proceed based on the consumer contract jurisdiction.
• The court noted that any issues regarding data protection claims under the GDPR could be addressed separately as part of the ongoing case management.

This case brief summarizes the key facts, issues, holding, reasoning, and disposition of the court's decision in the matter of Ang v. Reliantco.