Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
THAT NEW CHESTNUT—THE PROPRIETARY STATUS OF BITCOINS
Jeremiah Lau*
AA v Persons Unknown
Are Bitcoins1 property? In AA v Persons Unknown,2 the High Court of England and Wales held that Bitcoins are property for the purpose of granting an interim proprietary injunction. Bryan J’s judgment stands out as one of the most reasoned judgments3 on the issue thus far. However, with respect, it does not quite go far enough to make good on its conclusion. It has removed a prominent argument standing in the way of recognising Bitcoins as property. Unfortunately, this was a missed opportunity to demonstrate a convincing positive case for why they should be considered property. It was also a missed opportunity to question the appropriateness of asking whether Bitcoins are property simpliciter, as opposed to asking more pointed questions.
* Sheridan Fellow, National University of Singapore; BCL candidate, University of Oxford.
1. For a thorough exposition of the underlying technology, see K Low & E Mik, “Pause the Blockchain Legal Revolution” (2020) 69 ICLQ 135.
2. [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm); [2020] 4 WLR 35.
3. Other recent decisions on this issue include B2C2 Ltd v Quoine PTC Ltd [2019] SGHC (I) 03; Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (In Liquidation) [2020] NZHC 728; Vorotyntseva v Money-4 Ltd t/a Nebeus.com [2018] EWHC 2596 (Ch); Liam David Robertson v Persons Unknown (15 July 2019) CL-2019-000444, Unreported.
Case and comment
379