The world of crypto seemingly never ceases to produce interesting legal cases - from Dr Craig Wright’s misadventures in the English courts to the mega-insolvencies of FTX and others in the US and offshore jurisdictions.

Just nine days into the New Year and already the first interesting crypto judgment of 2025 has been handed down in the case of Howells v Newport City Council [2025] EWHC 22 (Ch). The backstory is a fascinating if rather tragic one. Mr Howells claims to be the miner and owner of Bitcoin worth in excess of £600m at recent prices. However, in 2013, he says his partner accidentally threw away a hard drive containing the private key. As the saying goes - “no key, no coin”. So, Mr H has, understandably, made huge efforts to try to secure the return of the hard drive. However, Newport City Council – which owns and operates the landfill site in which Mr Howells believes the hard drive ended up – has steadfastly refused to allow him to search for it.

Armed with funding from a hedge fund, Mr H has reportedly put forward extensive search and recovery plans involving a mechanical arm, drones and robotic dogs to search for the drive. He even offered the council 10% of the Bitcoin – potentially equivalent to around £60m – in return for allowing the search. Still the council said no, citing serious environmental and public health concerns.

Undeterred Mr H took his fight to the courts in 2024, arguing that he owned the hard drive and everything on it and that the council should deliver it up or allow his team of experts to search for it. The council then successfully applied for summary judgment on the basis that there was no realistic prospect of the claim succeeding or other compelling reason for it to be disposed of at trial. The court’s decision turned on questions of property rights and limitation.

Crucially, Mr H was not able to establish any property rights in the hard drive on the basis that, under clause 14(6)(c) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, it belonged to the council on delivery to the tip. The court held that this was a complete answer to the claim. The fact that the key was recorded on the hard drive did not help Mr H – the record was held to be information rather than property. Further, any intangible property or property within a third category (“data objects” as the Law Commission has dubbed it) in relation to the Bitcoin was not physically located in the hard drive. A limitation defence was also available to the council in respect of a constructive trust claim.

We will have to wait and see whether that is the end of this long running story. However, one thing is for certain - the British public love a plucky underdog. Perhaps Mr H will be able to sell the film rights. I, for one, would watch it!