England and Wales Case Law

Ping Fai Yuen v Fun Yung Li & Anor

Claims in conversion are struck out as English law does not permit conversion of intangible property such as Bitcoin; trespass to goods is not struck out at this stage pending possible amendment; security for costs is refused due to overwhelming evidence, assets within jurisdiction, and unreliable cost estimates; substituted service is granted for Second Defendant.

Source excerpt

• Digital assets
• Conversion
• Trespass to goods
• Unjust enrichment
• Breach of confidence
• Misuse of private information

Read case analysis

R v Andrew Lakeman

Gold pieces in Old School Runescape are intangible property within the meaning of section 4 of the Theft Act 1968. They are not pure information, are rivalrous, have ascertainable value, are bought and sold, and can be the subject of dishonest appropriation. The criminal law definition of property is broad and not constrained by civil law limitations or contractual terms. Accordingly, gold pieces can be stolen and are capable of being the subject of the offence of theft.

Source excerpt

• Theft
• Digital assets
• Virtual property
• Computer misuse
• Money laundering

Read case analysis

Lakeman, R. v

Lakeman, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 4 (14 January 2026)

The Court of Appeal held that Old School Runescape gold pieces are property under s.4 Theft Act 1968 and can be stolen, allowing the Crown appeal.

• Theft
• Intangible property
• Digital assets
• Video game law
• Money laundering
• Computer misuse

Read case analysis

Tulip Trading Limited v Bitcoin Association for BSV & Ors.

The High Court refused Tulip Trading’s request to stay or adjourn Roger Ver’s jurisdiction challenge pending appeal, finding the balance of prejudice favoured hearing it.

• Jurisdiction challenge
• Stay of proceedings
• Adjournment
• Costs
• Digital assets
• Fiduciary duties

Read case analysis

Tulip Trading Limited v Bitcoin Association for BSVA & Ors

The High Court set aside permission to serve Tulip Trading’s claim out of the jurisdiction, holding the pleaded fiduciary and tort claims were not seriously arguable.

• Jurisdiction
• Fiduciary duties
• Duty of care
• Digital assets
• Service out of jurisdiction
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association For BSV & Ors

Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association For BSV & Ors [2022] EWHC 667 (Ch) (25 March 2022)

The High Court set aside service out of the jurisdiction in Tulip Trading’s claim against several Bitcoin developers, finding no serious issue on fiduciary or tort duties.

• Jurisdiction
• Fiduciary duties
• Duty of care
• Digital assets
• Blockchain
• Service out of jurisdiction

Read case analysis