The recent case of Howells v Newport City Council is a well-reported and somewhat unusual example of issues relating to cryptocurrency arising in the courts. We take a look at the legal issues that arose in this case and examine broader trends in cryptocurrency litigation. 

Howells v Newport City Council

Mr Howells sought to recover a hard drive containing the digital key required to access his Bitcoin, which he accidentally disposed of in a council landfill site. It was estimated that the value of the Bitcoin which Mr Howells could no longer access exceeded £600 million. Mr Howells sought recovery of the hard drive from the landfill, arguing that he was the rightful owner of the hard drive and its contents. He raised three heads of claim: (i) a proprietary restitutionary claim; (ii) an equitable proprietary claim; and (iii) a claim for a declaration that he is the legal owner of the hard drive and all property on it, together with an order for delivery up of the same or damages for its wrongful retention. 

The court ultimately granted summary judgment in favour of Newport City Council, citing waste disposal laws that transferred ownership of the hard drive to the council once deposited at the landfill. 

Litigation trends in cryptocurrency cases

The Howells case is not an isolated one. The number of cryptocurrency-related claims reaching the English High Court has steadily increased in recent years, with the number of active claims involving digital assets in the High Court in 2025 to date totalling 35. All of these are ongoing claims issued in previous years and which are continuing, and with the number of cases increasing year on year. This trend is expected to continue in tandem with the growing interest in, and accessibility of, cryptocurrency. It is therefore important for businesses and individuals exposed to cryptocurrency (e.g. cryptocurrency exchanges or their customers, businesses accepting/making payments using cryptocurrency or businesses that compensate employees with crypto-assets) to be aware of the cryptocurrency-related litigation landscape.

Claims relating to cryptocurrency issued in the High Court commonly centre on an allegation of civil fraud, breach of contract and/or contractual interpretation. Other heads of claim include breach of fiduciary duties, allegations of the establishment of trusts/breach of trust and intellectual property disputes, as well as allegations of professional negligence against professionals engaged to recover and/or trace cryptocurrency in a fraud context. There are distinct legal challenges which can be faced as a result of the unique nature of cryptocurrency and the environment in which it operates, such as its intangible nature, the manner in which the assets are held, market volatility, cyber-attack risk and the lack of regulation of the sector. The ease with which such assets can be quickly dissipated through numerous and complex transactions makes it imperative for decisions and recovery action in cryptocurrency-related cases to be taken quickly.

The complexity of cryptocurrency-related cases can be seen more broadly with the median length of such claims in the English High Court (for which data is available) being 271 days, almost double the median of all other claims for which data is available (137 days). Such complexities can be furthered by jurisdiction challenges which are more common in High Court cryptocurrency-related claims than in High Court claims generally (explainable by the fact that cryptocurrency exchanges, fraudsters and transactions can often be based in or take place in foreign jurisdictions). 

Comment

Cryptocurrency litigation is expected to continue to rise in tandem with the increasing popularity of the digital assets. As this subject matter continues to enter the courtroom, it is bound to continue raising novel and complex questions of interpretation and application of the existing legal framework, which the English courts have successfully grappled with to date and are suitably equipped to continue doing.

Authors: Duran Ross (Partner, Dispute Resolution), Nicola Thompson (Senior Knowledge Lawyer, Dispute Resolution), Filip Tryka (Trainee - Secondee, Dispute Resolution).