Cryptocurrency Legal Disputes in London: Emerging Case Law Explained

Cryptocurrency legal disputes in London have moved from a niche curiosity to one of the busiest corners of the Commercial Court’s docket. If you’d told a City lawyer in 2015 that judges would spend their afternoons debating whether Bitcoin counts as property, or whether an anonymous “persons unknown” defendant can be served by NFT, they’d have laughed you out of chambers. Now it’s just Tuesday.

The reason is simple. London remains one of the world’s leading centres for cross-border litigation, and crypto fraud, custody disputes, and blockchain governance questions almost always cross borders. Victims of scams are often in one country, the platforms are incorporated in another, and the wallets holding stolen funds might be controlled from a laptop anywhere on earth. English courts, with their flexible tools for tracing assets and compelling disclosure, have become a magnet for these claims.

This article walks through the UK crypto case law that actually matters right now: how English courts decided crypto is property in the first place, the landmark rulings on freezing orders and jurisdiction, and what the new Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 changes for anyone holding or trading digital assets. Whether you’re an investor who’s been scammed, a developer worried about liability, or just trying to understand where this area of law is heading, this guide breaks it down without the jargon.

Why London Has Become a Global Hub for Cryptocurrency Legal Disputes

A few things converged to make England and Wales the default venue for cryptocurrency litigation:

• A common law system built for flexibility. English judges have a long history of adapting old legal tools (trusts, injunctions, equitable remedies) to new kinds of property. Crypto turned out to fit reasonably well into that toolkit.
• World-class freezing order practice. The English courts pioneered the modern freezing injunction, and that expertise transfers directly to crypto fraud, where speed is everything before stolen coins get laundered through mixers or offshore exchanges.
• A deep pool of specialist counsel. Chambers like Wilberforce, along with City firms such as Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer and Norton Rose Fulbright, now run dedicated crypto disputes practices, and that expertise attracts claimants who might otherwise litigate elsewhere.
• Early, decisive guidance from the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT). Its 2019 Legal Statement gave the courts a ready-made analytical framework, which meant judges weren’t starting from scratch when the first cases landed.

None of this happened by accident. It reflects a deliberate effort by the judiciary, the Law Commission, and the profession to keep London competitive as a dispute resolution centre in a digital economy.

The Legal Foundation: Are Cryptoassets Property Under English Law?

Before you can sue over stolen crypto, freeze a wallet, or claim a breach of fiduciary duty, you need an answer to a more basic question: is cryptocurrency even a form of property that the law recognises? For years this wasn’t obvious. Traditional English law only recognised two categories of personal property: things you can physically possess, and things you can only enforce through legal action (like a debt). Cryptoassets sit awkwardly between the two.

The UKJT Legal Statement (2019)

The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, a group of judges, lawyers, and industry figures convened under the LawTech Delivery Panel, published a Legal Statement concluding that cryptoassets are capable of being property under English law, and that smart contracts can constitute enforceable contracts. This wasn’t binding law, but it gave the courts a clear, well-reasoned starting point, and judges leaned on it heavily in the cases that followed.

AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)

This was the case that turned the UKJT’s thinking into a judicial precedent. A company had been the victim of a ransomware attack and paid a Bitcoin ransom, then sought to trace and recover the funds. The Commercial Court held that Bitcoin qualifies as property capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction, adopting the UKJT’s reasoning almost wholesale. It was the first time an English court confirmed, in a binding judgment, that crypto could be frozen and traced like any other asset.

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025

<cite index=”5-1″>On 2 December 2025, the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 received Royal Assent and came into force, marking a significant development in modernising the legal framework for digital assets.</cite> <cite index=”5-1″>For the first time, digital assets such as cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens are explicitly recognised in statute as capable of being personal property.</cite> This closes a gap that judges had been papering over case by case for years, and it gives claimants, insolvency practitioners, and lenders a much firmer statutory footing when digital assets are involved in a dispute.

7 Landmark Cryptocurrency Legal Disputes in London

Here’s where the law actually gets tested: the cases themselves. These are the decisions that practitioners cite most often when they talk about cryptocurrency legal disputes in London.

1. AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)

Already mentioned above, but worth restating as case number one because everything else builds on it. It established that crypto is property, that a proprietary injunction can be granted against unidentified hackers (“persons unknown”), and that a crypto exchange can be ordered to disclose information about accounts linked to stolen funds, even though the exchange itself did nothing wrong.

2. Ion Science v Persons Unknown [2020] EWHC 3688 (Comm)

Another early fraud case, this one involving an alleged investment scam and a worldwide freezing order. <cite index=”3-2″>The judge stressed the need for a realistic and pragmatic approach when applying the jurisdictional gateways, particularly in claims involving apparently international frauds relating to assets that existed on the internet.</cite> The court reasoned that <cite index=”3-2″>such assets should be treated in law as existing at the place where their owner resided, and that the courts of that place should have jurisdiction over tort claims relating to them.</cite> That single idea, that a stolen crypto asset is “located” wherever its owner lives, has quietly underpinned almost every jurisdiction argument since.

3. Tulip Trading Ltd v van der Laan and others [2023] EWCA Civ 83

Possibly the single most important crypto litigation decision to come out of London so far, and one with genuinely global consequences for developers. Tulip Trading, a company linked to Dr Craig Wright, claimed to have lost access to roughly $4 billion in Bitcoin after a hack wiped its private keys. Rather than suing the hackers (who were unknown), Tulip sued the core developers of the relevant Bitcoin networks, arguing they owed fiduciary duties to Bitcoin owners and should be compelled to rewrite the software to restore its access.

The High Court threw the claim out, finding no realistic prospect that developers owed any such duty. The Court of Appeal disagreed. <cite index=”13-1″>Birss LJ noted that “for Tulip’s case to succeed would involve a significant development of the common law on fiduciary duties,”</cite> but held that the argument was at least arguable and deserved a trial rather than summary dismissal. <cite index=”15-1”>The Court held that there was a serious issue to be tried as to the existence of the duties, finding that if Bitcoin’s decentralised governance really is a myth, there is much to be said for the view that developers owe fiduciary duties to the true owners of that property.</cite>

The case never reached a full trial on the facts (Tulip’s claim was eventually discontinued after the related COPA litigation went against Dr Wright’s identity claims), but the Court of Appeal’s reasoning still stands as authority that:

• Software developers can, in principle, owe fiduciary duties to the people who rely on their code.
• “Decentralisation” is a factual question the court will examine in detail, not a legal shield developers can wave away at a preliminary stage.
• The internet is not, in Birss LJ’s words, a place beyond the reach of English law.

You can read the full judgment directly on the judiciary’s own site, which is worth doing if you want the unfiltered reasoning rather than a law firm’s summary: Tulip Trading v van der Laan judgment (judiciary.uk).

4. D’Aloia v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 1723 (Ch)

This case dealt with a claimant who was tricked into transferring cryptocurrency to fraudsters through a fake trading platform. The High Court granted permission to serve proceedings on the anonymous fraudsters via NFT (non-fungible token) airdrop, effectively “serving” legal papers directly to their crypto wallet address on the blockchain. It also found there was a good arguable case that the stolen assets were held on constructive trust, giving the victim a proprietary claim rather than just a personal one against the fraudster. For anyone tracking novel service methods in cryptocurrency legal disputes in London, this remains one of the most cited examples.

5. Smithers & Anor v Persons Unknown [2026] 3 WLUK 397

A more recent decision confirming that the jurisdictional groundwork laid in Ion Science still holds up. <cite index=”3-1″>The Commercial Court held there was a good arguable case that, where cryptoassets were taken from an individual resident in England and Wales, damage was sustained within the jurisdiction for the purposes of the tort gateway in Practice Direction 6B paragraph 3.1.9.</cite> <cite index=”3-1″>The court again emphasised the importance of taking a realistic and pragmatic approach to the jurisdictional gateways, noting that debates over where cryptoassets were located in a technical sense were unlikely to provide a sensible basis for identifying the appropriate jurisdiction.</cite> This case involved the so-called “Inferno Drainer” fraud, one of a growing wave of automated wallet-draining scams that have kept the Commercial Court busy.

6. Hussain v Fix (June 2026)

A smaller case in value but interesting in principle. The claimant sought the return of 7.8 Bitcoin owed under a business agreement. The court reaffirmed Bitcoin’s status as property but stopped short of ordering the defendant to repay the debt in Bitcoin itself, rather than its cash equivalent, leaving that question open. It’s a useful reminder that recognising crypto as property doesn’t automatically answer every enforcement question; courts still need to work out remedies on a case-by-case basis, and contracts that don’t specify repayment in-kind may default to a fiat payout at prevailing exchange rates.

7. Wang v Darby and the Trust Cases

Wilberforce Chambers, among the most active sets in this space, has been involved in what’s described as the first case on holding cryptocurrency on trust. These trust-based claims matter because they let a claimant assert a proprietary interest in specific coins rather than just a personal debt claim against an insolvent or untraceable defendant, which can be the difference between recovering something and recovering nothing when a platform collapses.

Common Legal Remedies in Crypto Disputes

Once a case gets underway, English courts tend to reach for a fairly consistent toolkit. Understanding these remedies helps explain why so many claimants choose to litigate in London specifically.

1. Freezing orders (Mareva injunctions): Freeze a defendant’s assets, including crypto wallets, before judgment, to stop them being dissipated while the case is ongoing.
2. Proprietary injunctions: Preserve specific assets that are said to belong to the claimant, rather than just restraining the defendant generally.
3. Bankers Trust orders and disclosure orders: Compel third parties, most often crypto exchanges, to disclose account information linked to suspicious transactions, even where the exchange itself isn’t accused of wrongdoing.
4. Norwich Pharmacal orders: A related disclosure tool used to identify wrongdoers when a claimant doesn’t yet know who they’re suing.
5. Service by NFT or blockchain transaction: Increasingly accepted where defendants are anonymous “persons unknown” and there’s no other practical way to notify them.
6. Constructive trust claims: Give victims a proprietary stake in specific assets, which matters enormously if a fraudster or platform becomes insolvent.

For claimants, the combination of a proprietary injunction plus a disclosure order against an exchange is often the fastest realistic path to actually recovering stolen funds, rather than just winning a judgment that turns out to be worthless.

Jurisdiction Challenges in Cross-Border Crypto Fraud

Jurisdiction is where most of the genuinely hard legal questions in this area still live. Crypto doesn’t respect borders, so courts have had to work out, almost from first principles, where a digital asset is “located” for legal purposes.

The dominant English approach, developed through Ion Science and reaffirmed in Smithers, treats a stolen cryptoasset as located wherever its owner resides. That gives English courts jurisdiction whenever the victim is based in England and Wales, regardless of where the fraudsters, exchanges, or servers happen to be. <cite index=”3-1″>Notwithstanding this line of decisions, the question of which courts should have jurisdiction over disputes concerning digital assets remains unsettled, and the Law Commission’s 2025 consultation on digital assets considered this issue directly, proposing an alternative approach under which cross-border claims would be heard in the court of the place where the assets could effectively be dealt with at the time proceedings were issued.</cite>

That alternative test hasn’t replaced the current approach, and <cite index=”3-1″>the Law Commission’s final report is still awaited</cite>, so for now the “claimant’s residence” test remains the practical rule that litigators plan around. If you’re weighing up where to bring a cross-border crypto claim, it’s worth reading the Law Commission’s own digital assets project pages directly rather than relying on secondhand summaries: Law Commission digital assets project.

The Role of Arbitration in Crypto Disputes

Not every crypto dispute ends up in front of a judge. The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce’s Digital Dispute Resolution Rules, published in 2021, were designed specifically to be incorporated into smart contracts and on-chain relationships, giving parties a fast, technically literate arbitration route as an alternative to court proceedings. Institutions like the London Court of International Arbitration have adapted their procedures to support virtual hearings and digital case management, which suits disputes where evidence lives entirely on a blockchain and parties may be scattered across multiple countries. As stablecoin use and DeFi protocols expand, arbitration is likely to handle a growing share of contractual disputes, while the courts remain the forum of choice for fraud, theft, and questions about who actually owns a given asset.

What This Means for Businesses and Investors

If you hold, trade, or build products around cryptocurrency and have any connection to the UK, a few practical points fall out of this case law:

• Written agreements should specify the currency of repayment. Hussain v Fix shows that courts won’t assume a debt should be repaid in Bitcoin just because it was denominated that way; say so explicitly in the contract.
• Act fast if you’re defrauded. Freezing orders and disclosure orders work best when sought quickly, before stolen coins move through mixers or offshore platforms.
• Exchanges can be dragged into disputes they had no part in. Disclosure orders against exchanges are now routine, so platforms operating in or serving the UK market should expect and plan for this kind of request.
• Developers should take governance seriously. Tulip Trading shows that claims about developer control and fiduciary responsibility will get a proper hearing rather than being dismissed on paper.
• The statutory footing has changed. With the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 now in force, arguments about whether an asset even counts as property are largely settled; disputes are moving on to questions of remedy, valuation, and enforcement instead.
• Watch the FCA’s incoming regime. A formal authorisation and conduct framework for crypto firms is expected to take full effect from 2027, and disputes involving regulated firms will increasingly sit alongside these new compliance obligations.

The Future of Cryptocurrency Legal Disputes in London

The direction of travel is fairly clear. Courts have stopped debating whether crypto is “real” property and moved on to harder, more interesting questions: who owes duties to whom, how far a debtor can be forced to pay in the original asset rather than cash, and where exactly the line sits between a genuinely decentralised network and one with an identifiable, responsible group of developers. The Law Commission’s ongoing work on jurisdiction, the FCA’s incoming authorisation regime, and the steady flow of fraud claims through the Commercial Court all point to the same conclusion: cryptocurrency legal disputes in London are not a passing phase. They’re becoming a permanent, well-developed strand of English commercial litigation, with its own precedents, its own specialist bar, and its own emerging rulebook.

Conclusion

Cryptocurrency legal disputes in London have grown from a handful of experimental rulings into a genuinely mature area of English commercial law, anchored by cases like AA v Persons Unknown, Ion Science v Persons Unknown, and Tulip Trading v van der Laan, and now reinforced by the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025. Courts have settled the basic question of whether crypto counts as property and are now working through harder questions around developer liability, cross-border jurisdiction, and how far existing remedies like freezing orders and proprietary injunctions stretch to cover a genuinely borderless asset class.

For investors, exchanges, and developers alike, the practical lesson is the same: the law is catching up quickly, the courts are willing to innovate, and anyone dealing with digital assets connected to the UK should assume London’s courts are both willing and increasingly well-equipped to hear their dispute.