In our latest article, our litigator Kasianos Liasides analyses a recent judgment of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in a crypto dispute, which offers valuable guidance on where the courts will draw the line on speculative claims and investor losses.
As cryptocurrency becomes embedded in global finance, legal disputes in this space are no longer rare. Courts are increasingly being asked to adjudicate complex, high-stakes conflicts that test the boundaries of traditional legal principles in today’s digital economy.
On 21 May 2025, the Court of Appeal of Engand and Wales handed down a landmark judgment in BSV Claims Ltd v Bittylicious Ltd Payward Ltd and other companies [2025] EWCA Civ 661. The case arose from a collective action brought on behalf of 243,000 holders of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) following its delisting from several major exchanges. The appeal stemmed from Binance’s application before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) to strike out the part of the claim advanced by Sub-class B investors, who continued to hold BSV and sought to recover losses based on what the token might have been worth, had it remained listed.
The judgment is significant not only for its scale but also for the clarity with which it distinguishes genuine, recoverable loss from speculative optimism in volatile digital markets.
The £9 Billion Question
In April 2019, major crypto exchanges — including Binance— announced their plans to delist BSV following growing controversy around BSV’s founder, who had falsely claimed to be Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. The announcements triggered an immediate market reaction, sending BSV’s price down from about £55 to £39 within a week. The Claimants alleged that this drop was the result of collusive and anti-competitive conduct that unfairly pushed BSV out of the market.
Despite the decline, BSV remained tradeable on other platforms, and comparable cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash remained readily available as substitutes.
Sub-class B’s claim was based on what their expert called the “foregone growth effect”, referring to the alleged loss of the growth in BSV’s value (or, alternatively, the loss of a chance of such growth) that would have occurred had BSV become a top-tier cryptocurrency like Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash.
The Tribunal’s Decision: The Duty to Mitigate still Applies
Binance’s strike-out application before the Tribunal was only partly successful.
The Tribunal allowed the Sub-Class B claim to continue in a narrower form but made two key findings:
• It held that if the relevant BSV holders were actually, or constructively aware of the delisting events, the market mitigation rule applied, as there was an available market of comparable cryptocurrency investments such as Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
• It also struck out the loss of a chance claim, on the basis that the market mitigation rule applied equally to that claim, and in the alternative, the alleged losses of the particular Sub – Class did not rely on any feature which would render a loss of chance analysis appropriate.
As a result, the Tribunal made clear that Sub-class B holders could only be entitled to recover losses arising from the immediate decline in BSV’s market value following its delisting (the drop from approximately £55 to £39 per coin), which their expert described as the “immediate and persistent effect.” By contrast, the alleged loss based on the “foregone growth effect” theory was held to be too remote and speculative to be recoverable in law.
The Claimants appealed.
The Court of Appeal’s Judgment: No to Speculative Crypto Claims
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in full, upholding the Tribunal’s reasoning and confirming that Sub-class B’s £9 billion claim was legally unsustainable. At the heart of its reasoning was the finding that the losses claimed by Sub-class B were too speculative, being based on hypothetical market movements and investor sentiment rather than any demonstrable or crystallised loss.
Market Mitigation Rule
The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the market mitigation rule applied to BSV holders who were actually or constructively aware of the delisting events. It found that those investors could have mitigated their losses by selling their BSV, since, according to the Claimants’ own expert, there was an available market of comparable cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
The Court went on to confirm that BSV “was obviously not a unique cryptocurrency without reasonably similar substitutes” and stated that cryptocurrencies should not be treated “as if they were real property … They are tradeable assets, equivalent (in this context) to shares, derivatives or other tradeable financial instruments.”
To put it simply, the Court reaffirmed that crypto assets are subject to the same established principles of loss and mitigation as other tradeable assets, and that traditional legal doctrines apply regardless of volatility or market hype.
Also, the Court further observed:
“Once the Sub-class B holders knew of the delisting events, their investment decisions were nothing to do with the defendants. They had a duty to mitigate their losses … their maximum loss is calculated by reference to the value they could have received for them once they knew or ought to have known of the wrongful conduct.”
Loss of chance claim
The Court held that the loss of a chance claim could not stand because the Claimants had failed to mitigate their losses by acting in the market. As the Court explained:
“[The loss of a chance claim] assumes that it was reasonable mitigation for the Sub-class B holders to have retained their holdings once they became aware of the delisting events. To be clear, it was not reasonable mitigation …”
The Court further noted that the Sub-class B claim “did not rely on any feature which would render a loss of chance analysis appropriate’’.
A note on Pleadings from the Court of Appeal
Beyond damages, the Court offered a cautionary reminder on pleadings. It observed that, in complex financial disputes, practitioners sometimes allow expert terminology — such as the “foregone growth effect” — to shape their claims, which can blur rather than clarify the underlying legal issues. The Court emphasised that expert evidence should support a pleaded case, not define it.
What’s Next: Eyes on the UK Supreme Court
Despite the double loss, the Claimants have sought permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court — potentially setting the stage for the highest court to consider speculative damages and mitigation duties in crypto collective actions for the first time.
Final Thoughts: A Defining Moment in Crypto Litigation
BSV Claims Ltd v Bittylicious Ltd & Others is more than a dispute about one token’s price crash. It marks a defining moment in crypto litigation, reaffirming that digital assets remain subject to traditional legal principles such as causation, mitigation, and foreseeability.
For now, the law is clear:
– Crypto investors cannot recover hypothetical or speculative profits; and
– They must mitigate losses just like investors in any other tradeable asset.
It is important to note that the Court of Appeal did not determine whether the exchanges’ conduct actually breached competition law. That question — along with the broader merits of the alleged collusion — remains before the Tribunal. The appellate rulings dealt only with the scope and methodology of recoverable damages, not with liability itself.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It reflects the author’s interpretation of a publicly available judgment as of October 2025. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice. Readers should seek professional legal advice before acting on any of the issues discussed. The views expressed are personal to the author and do not necessarily represent those of any firm, institution, or affiliated entity.
