The recent case of  B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd [2019] has confirmed that this new form of currency can be held to the same rules and restrictions as other more established currencies, and that it can be legally defined as property.

One key legal issue ultimately accepted by both parties related to how the relevant law was to be applied to cryptocurrency, taking into account the fact that it does not take the form of property in a traditional sense.

Both the court and the relevant parties ultimately accepted that the law would treat cryptocurrencies as property – they did not need to create a new definition, as it fell within the current general definition of property being that it “must be definable, identifiable by third parties, capable in its nature of assumption by third parties, and have some degree of permanence or stability (National Province Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175).

The Plaintiff claimed the defendant held their account earnings on trust for it, and the plaintiff destroyed it. The defence included:  That the contract was void for “unilateral mistake” at common law;  That the contract was voidable for “unilateral mistake” in equity; That the contract was void for “mutual mistake” at common law; and Unjust enrichment.

The Court held in favout of the plaintiff and ordered that the cryptocurrency be returned by the defendant.

With thanks to Mondaq.