SHORTER READ

FinTech

Cryptocurrency as property: Australian Court allows cryptocurrency as security for costs

SHORTER READ

1 minute read

12 March 2020

SHARE

Authors

Anna Battams

Associate

Talk to Anna about Commercial disputes & Banking & financial disputes & Commercial arbitration & Financial regulatory

An Australian Court has spearheaded the treatment of cryptocurrency as property in relation to financial disputes. In Hague v Cordiner (No. 2) [2020] NSWDC 23, the New South Wales District Court approved the claimant’s cryptocurrency investment account as security for costs.

To recap some basic commercial litigation principles:

  • Following judgment, the unsuccessful party in litigation is normally ordered to pay the legal costs of the successful party.
  • Where there is concern about a claimant’s capacity to pay legal costs, a defendant will usually (at the outset of the litigation) bring an application seeking that the claimant pay a certain amount of money into a trust account (normally the Court’s) which will be held until the end of the litigation.
  • This is known as “security for costs” and ensures that if a costs order is made in favour of the defendant, the payment of those costs (or part of the costs) is secured.
  • As noted above, the security is normally a payment into a trust account or, sometimes, a bank guarantee.

In this case, the claimant proposed that his cryptocurrency reserves (which were held by the digital currency exchange, BTC Markets) be treated as the security (i.e. without requiring payment into Court). While this was opposed by the defendant, on the basis that it was a “highly unstable form of investment”, the judge allowed the crypto account as security.

This decision (albeit from a lower Australian Court) is encouraging and gives further strength to the argument that cryptocurrency is indeed property. Further, the Judge took a sensible approach to dealing with the undoubted volatility of digital currency by requiring the claimant to: (1) notify the defendant’s solicitors (within 24 hours) when the balance of the digital reserves dropped below the amount of the security; and (2) provide periodic bank statements to the defendant’s solicitors.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2020/23.html

12 March 2020

Authors

Anna Battams

Associate

View profile

SHARE

Related content

Latestfromtheteam

View all

MoreofAnna'sInsights

View all

You are contacting

Anna Battams

Associate

anna.battams@collyerbristow.com



    Subscribe

    Please add your details and your areas of interest below

    Specialist sectors:

    Legal services:

    Other information:

    Jurisdictions of interest to you (other than UK):

    Article contributor

    FINDING OUR ARTICLES OF INTEREST? SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE THE LATEST CONTENT DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX

    Subscribe now
    Get In Touch Print this page
    Collyer Bristow
    < back to Updates
    < Back to What we do
    < Back to What we do
    < Back to What we do
    < Back to What we do
    ExpandNeed some help?Toggle

    < Back to menu

    I have an issue and need your help

    Scroll to see our A-Z list of expertise

    Get in touch

    Get in touch using our form below.