Shorter Reads

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

1 minute read

Published 12 March 2020

Share

Key information

  • Services
  • FinTech

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

Message us on WhatsApp

Related latest updates
PREV NEXT

Arrow Back to Insights

Shorter Reads

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

Published 12 March 2020

Associated sectors / services

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

Associated sectors / services

Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.

    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):

    Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?

    Subscribe to our articles

    Message us on WhatsApp

    Please note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.

    I accept Close

    Close
    Scroll up
    ExpandNeed some help?Toggle

    Get in touch

    Get in touch using our form below.