A case heard in London has revived an important debate regarding the repayment of crypto assets in English law. In Hussain v Fix, the plaintiff requested the return of 7.8 BTC, which he stated was related to business expenses under a previous agreement. The hearing was held on June 18 and it was reported that the defendant did not come to the court and object to the claim.
Considering Bitcoin as property alone may not be enough
The judge presiding over the case confirmed the generally accepted approach in the UK in recent years and stated that Bitcoin qualifies as property in terms of English law. This approach was particularly shaped by the assessment put forward by the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce in 2019. Thus, the way was opened for Bitcoin owners to claim their assets in civil jurisdiction.
However, the court’s recognition of Bitcoin as property and forcing the debtor to deliver Bitcoin directly do not mean the same legal result. According to the news, the judge did not make a definitive ruling that there was a clear authority to order the debt to be paid in Bitcoin instead of cash. English courts have historically been able to enforce liabilities relating to non-cash assets such as shares or physical property. However, it is not yet clear whether the same approach applies to the in-kind return of a particular crypto asset.
The main issue before the court is whether a debt can be ordered to be paid in Bitcoin, rather than whether Bitcoin is considered property.
This uncertainty may have direct financial consequences for the parties. For example, if 7.8 BTC was given when Bitcoin was at $30,000, the amount received by the creditor may differ if the repayment decision is made in sterling after Bitcoin rises above $100,000. In the opposite scenario, exchange rate volatility may result in the detriment of the debtor.
The gap in the contracts draws attention
Global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright noted a similar gap in its assessment of digital asset disputes published in January 2026. The company stated that courts in key jurisdictions continue to develop legal principles in areas such as fiduciary relationships, possession and contractual obligations in the context of digital assets.
Although there has been some progress regarding the ownership status of digital assets in the UK through 2025, there has been no clear case law on crypto redemptions in kind. It is stated that if the contract does not clearly state that the repayment will be made in crypto money, the court may choose the method of payment in fiat money. This situation creates exchange rate risk that the parties did not intend to undertake in the first place.
Similar discussions are taking place in other countries too
The news also pointed out that this legal debate is not limited to England only. In a high court decision given on June 1 in South Africa, it was ruled that 1,680 BTC confiscated from a crypto investor qualified as “capital” in terms of the country’s exchange control regulations. The decision cited the fact that Bitcoin can be purchased with local currency, held for speculative purposes, and accepted as a means of payment in some workplaces.
On the other hand, in the joint statement made by the South African Central Bank and the Financial Sector Conduct Authority, it was stated that cryptocurrencies are not considered legal tender or money within the framework of national payment system legislation. This difference between the court decision and the regulatory approach is considered as one of the examples showing that the development of the legal framework is lagging behind.
Mini dictionary: UK Jurisdiction Taskforce is known as an expert body in the UK that prepares legal assessments in new areas such as digital assets and smart contracts. Such texts do not constitute a binding court decision, but they can have a guiding effect on judicial practice.
All eyes are on new regulatory steps
Following the Hussain v Fix case, it is considered that there may be pressure in legal circles, Parliament or the Law Commission to provide more clarity. Since there is no complementary decision from the higher courts on the subject, there is still a possibility that parties who borrow and lend Bitcoin in the UK will face decisions resulting in sterling if they act with verbal agreements.
While it was stated that the judicial process has not been completed yet, the news emphasized that written contracts, which clearly regulate with which entity and in what form the repayment will be made, have gained importance. It was noted that thus, it would be possible for the parties to limit disputes arising from price volatility and difference of interpretation that may arise later.
