Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Evolution without revolution: crypto-assets as a stress test for the flexibility of the common law of England and Wales Cover

Evolution without revolution: crypto-assets as a stress test for the flexibility of the common law of England and Wales

TalTech Journal of European Studies
Volume 16 (2026): Issue 1 (June 2026)
By:   
Open Access
|Jun 2026
References

References

  1. ‘AA v. Persons Unknown, Re Bitcoin’ (2019) England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court (QBD)).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. Addleshaw Goddard (2021) ‘Digital transactions—ground-breaking digital dispute resolution rules published’, 27 May. Available at: https://www.addleshawgoddard.com/en/insights/insights-briefings/2021/litigation/digital-transactions-dispute-resolution-rules/ (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. Allen, J.G. (2019) ‘Property in digital coins’, European Property Law Journal, 8(1), pp. 64–101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2019-0005
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. Bayern, S. (2014) ‘Dynamic common law and technological change: the classification of Bitcoin’, Washington & Lee Law Review Online, 71(2), pp. 22–34. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr-online/vol71/iss2/2/ (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. Bennett Moses, L. (2008) ‘The applicability of property law in new contexts: from cells to cyberspace’, Sydney Law Review, 30(4), pp. 639–662.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. Brummer, C. and Seira, R. (2022) ‘Legal wrappers and DAOs’. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4123737
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. ‘ByBit Fintech Ltd. v. Ho Kai Xin’ (2023) Singapore High Court, case 19. Available at: https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_199 (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. ‘Colonial Bank v. Whinney’ (1885) Court of Appeal, 30 Ch D 261.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. ‘Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Ooki DAO’ (2022) United States District Court, Northern District of California, case 3:22-CV-05416-WHO. Available at: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65327241/commodity-futures-trading-commission-v-ooki-dao/ (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. Digital Assets Project (2019) English translation of the Mt Gox judgment on the legal status of bitcoin. Oxford: Oxford Law Faculty. Available at: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2019/02/english-translation-mt-gox-judgment-legal-status-bitcoin-prepared (Accessed: 15 February 2021).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. ‘D’Aloia v. Persons Unknown & Others’ (2024) England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division), case 2342. BAILII. Available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/2342.html (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. ‘Director of Public Prosecutions v. Briedis’ (2021) England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court), case 3155. BAILII. Available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/3155.html (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. FCA (2025a) ‘FCA collaborates with industry to help shape future of UK’s crypto markets’, Financial Conduct Authority. Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-collaborates-industry-help-shape-future-uks-crypto-markets (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. FCA (2025b) ‘CP25/28: Progressing fund tokenisation’, Financial Conduct Authority. Availavle at: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/cp25-28-progressing-fund-tokenisation (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. FCA (2025c) ‘FCA supports tokenisation to boost efficiency and innovation in asset management’, Financial Conduct Authority. Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-supports-tokenisation (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. ‘Fetch.ai Ltd v. Persons Unknown’ (2021) England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court), case 2254. BAILII. Available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/2254.html (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. Fox, D. (2018) ‘Cryptocurrencies in the common law of property’. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3232501
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. Fox, D. (2019) ‘Cryptocurrencies in the common law of property’, in D. Fox and S. Green (eds) Cryptocurrencies in public and private law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 139–176. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198826385.003.0006
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. Fox, D. (2021) ‘Tokenised assets in private law’. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3807858
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. Garcia-Teruel, R.M. and Simón-Moreno, H. (2021) ‘The digital tokenization of property rights: a comparative perspective’, Computer Law & Security Review, 41, article 105543. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105543
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. Geale, D. (2025) ‘The FCA’s approach to regulating cryptoassets and stablecoins’. Speech at City & Financial Global, 26 November. Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/speeches/fcas-approach-regulating-cryptoassets-stablecoins (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. HM Treasury (2025) Future financial services regulatory regime for cryptoassets (regulated activities)—Policy Note (Accessible). Policy Paper. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-regime-forcryptoassets-regulated-activities-draft-si-and-policy-note/future-financial-services-regulatory-regime-for-cryptoassets-regulated-activities-policy-note-accessible (Accessed: 21 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. Katz, E. and Williams, S. (2025) ‘Tokenisation of investment funds: some legal challenges’, Journal of International Banking and Financial Law, 1 July. Available at: https://www.jibfl.co.uk/articles/tokenisation-of-investment-funds-some-legal-challenges (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. Krause, D. (2025) ‘Analyzing the UK’s evolving regulatory framework for Bitcoin and digital assets’. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5247102
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. Law Commission (2021) Smart legal contracts (Law Com. No. 401).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. Law Commission (2022) Electronic trade documents final report (Law
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. Com. No. 405). Available at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250109113011mp_/https://cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/30/2022/03/Electronic-Trade-Documents-final-report-ACCESSIBLE-1.pdf (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. Law Commission (2023) Digital assets (Law Com. No. 412). Available at: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/digital-assets/ (Accessed: 3 August 2022).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. Law Commission (2024) Decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs). A scoping paper. Available at: https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/decentralised-autonomous-organisations-daos/ (Accessed: 3 August 2022).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. ‘Litecoin Foundation Ltd. v. Inshallah Ltd.’ (2021) England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division), case 1998. BAILII. Available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/1998.html (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. Low, K.F.K. (2020) ‘Bitcoins as property: welcome clarity?’, Law Quarterly Review, 136(3), pp. 345–349.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  32. Martins Pereira, C. (2023) ‘The digital tokenization of non-financial assets: challenges to English private law’, Católica Law Review, 7(2), pp. 9–46. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5042889
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  33. Milliken, D. and Wilkes, T. (2025) ‘UK sets out new rules for crypto as it aligns with US on approach’, Reuters, 29 April. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/uk-sets-out-new-crypto-rules-date-wider-financial-services-strategy-2025-04-29/ (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  34. Odinet, C.K. and Tosato, A. (2025) ‘Tokenized real estate: the law and tech of digital deeds’. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5401703
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  35. ‘Osbourne v. Persons Unknown Category A’ (2023) England and Wales High Court (King’s Bench Division), case 39. BAILII. Available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/39.html (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  36. ‘Ruscoe v. Cryptopia Ltd (in Liquidation)’ (2020) New Zealand High Court, case 728. NZLII. Available at: https://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2020/728.html (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  37. Sarel, R. (2021) ‘Property rights in cryptocurrencies: a law and economics perspective’, North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 22(3), pp. 389–446.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  38. Sarra, J. and Gullifer, L. (2019) ‘Crypto-claimants and bitcoin bankruptcy: challenges for recognition and realization’, International Insolvency Review, 28(2), pp. 233–272. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/iir.1346
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  39. Schillig, M.A. (2022) ‘Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) under English law’, Law and Financial Markets Review, 16(1–2), pp. 68–78. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17521440.2023.2174814
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  40. ‘Swift v. Dairywise (No 1)’ (2000) Court of Appeal, 1 WLR 1177.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  41. ‘Torkington v. Magee’ (1902) Court of Appeal, 2 KB 427.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  42. ‘Tulip Trading Ltd. v. van der Laan’ (2023) England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), case 83. BAILII. Available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/83.html (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  43. UKJT (2019) Legal statement on cryptoassets and smart contracts. UK Jurisdiction Taskforce. Available at: https://technation.io/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/6.6056_JO_Cryptocurrencies_Statement_FINAL_WEB_111119-1.pdf (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  44. UKJT (2021) Digital dispute resolution rules. UK Jurisdiction Taskforce. Available at: https://lawtechuk.io/ukjt/digital-dispute-resolution-rules/ (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  45. Verstappen, J. (2025) ‘Tokenisation of absolute rights and claims: on the use of tokens to transfer rights in property law’, European Journal of Risk Regulation, pp. 1–20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2025.27
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  46. Vos, G. (2019) ‘Resolving disputes about smart contracts’. Speech by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court at Northumbria University, 1 July.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  47. Walch, A. (2018) ‘In code(rs) we trust: software developers as fiduciaries in public blockchains’, in P. Hacker et al. (eds) Regulating Blockchain. Techno-social and legal challenges. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3203198 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  48. ‘Wang v. Darby’ (2021) England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court), case 3054. BAILII. Available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/3054.html (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  49. Werbach, K. (2018) The blockchain and the new architecture of trust. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11449.001.0001
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  50. ‘Yeates (a pseudonym) v. The King’ (2025) Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal, case 288. AustLII. Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2025/288.html (Accessed: 30 November 2025).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2026-0006 | Journal eISSN: 2674-4619 | Journal ISSN: 2674-4600
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 109 - 128
Published on: Jun 28, 2026
Published by: Tallinn University of Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
crypto-assets,
distributed ledger technology,
Financial Services and Markets Act,
property law,
smart contracts, tokenisation
Related subjects:
Computer sciences,
Computer sciences, other,
Business and economics,
Political economics,
Political economics, other,
Law,
Law, other,
Social sciences,
Social sciences, other

© 2026 Simge Aslan, published by Tallinn University of Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 16 (2026): Issue 1 (June 2026)
Previous article
Next article