DRH v DRI

DRI and DRH are cryptocurrency foundations that, with a third party, agreed to merge their native tokens. Disputes arose and DRI began arbitration against DRH on 15 August 2025. Both sides sought emergency relief; the Emergency Arbitrator granted DRI's application, dismissed DRH's, and issued a partial final award, an amended award and a second amended award on costs.

In HC/OA 1271/2025, DRH sought to set aside parts of the awards and asked that no information about the proceedings be published and that the court file be sealed. DRI applied in HC/SUM 3512/2025 for the matter to be heard in open court. On 2 February 2026 the High Court Judge refused DRH's non-disclosure and sealing prayers and allowed DRI's open court prayer, finding that the arbitration and several substantive issues had already been disclosed publicly, including on social media. DRH appealed in Civil Appeal No 5 of 2026. After the decision DRI posted a link to the second amended award on its X account; the Judge later made interim sealing orders, an injunction against further posts and an order to delete the post, pending the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dealt with three summonses: DRI's application to strike out DRH's notice of appeal for lack of permission (SUM 5), DRH's application to seal the appeal file (SUM 7), and DRH's application for a declaration that no permission was needed or, alternatively, for permission (SUM 9).

1. Whether permission to appeal was required for DRH to appeal against the Judge's order on confidentiality.
2. Whether the Judge's order was a final order or an interlocutory order under the Bozson test.
3. Whether the court file in the appeal should be sealed until further order.

Under s 29A(1)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and the Fifth Schedule, permission is needed to appeal an interlocutory order made at the hearing of an interlocutory application, but a final order made at such a hearing is appealable as of right. Applying the test in Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council [1903] 1 KB 547, an order is final if it finally disposes of the parties' rights.

The court accepted DRI's point that the confidentiality applications were themselves interlocutory, being peripheral to the main question in OA 1271 of whether parts of the awards should be set aside. But the Judge's order was nonetheless final. By holding that DRH had lost its right to insist on confidentiality and that open justice required OA 1271 to be treated as no longer confidential, the Judge finally disposed of DRH's contractual right to confidentiality in the emergency arbitration, which is a substantive right even though raised in a procedural setting. The applications were self-contained, and the Judge's decision would either vindicate or destroy that right. DRH could therefore appeal without permission, so the strike-out failed.

On sealing, since the Judge had already sealed the related court files, restrained DRI from further publications and ordered deletion of its post pending the appeal, the court saw no reason to depart from those orders and found that sealing the appeal file would not prejudice DRI.

The Court of Appeal dismissed SUM 5, granted prayer 1 of SUM 9 declaring that permission to appeal was not required, and made an order in terms of SUM 7 sealing the appeal file. DRI was ordered to pay DRH costs of $6,500 inclusive of disbursements for SUM 5 and SUM 9, with costs of SUM 7 in the cause.