Arbitration analysis: Crypto-related disputes are increasingly being referred to alternative dispute resolution, specifically arbitration. This is no surprise, for reasons such as the wider adoption of crypto generally and arbitration being well-aligned to the ethos of crypto. In this article, Syed Rahman, partner and Rhys Evans, associate, at Rahman Ravelli, look at the key factors that can determine how effective arbitration can be in crypto-related disputes.

This Practice Note on crypto and digital assets identifies the common characteristics of cryptoassets, their initial development via the Bitcoin White Paper, how cryptography works, the distinction between public and private keys, the concepts of nodes and mining (including proof of work and proof of stake), explains blockchain, identifies different types of digital asset, explains how crypto exchanges typically work and the emergence of regulatory obligations in this area. It provides a quick access introduction to the topic for use by dispute resolution lawyers working on civil disputes involving crypto and digital assets. For guidance on the relevance of cryptoassets for dispute resolution lawyers and the types of claim that may arise, see Practice Note: Cryptoassets for Dispute Resolution lawyers. Workable definitions of 'digital asset' and 'cryptoasset' The terms 'digital asset' and 'cryptoasset' are often used interchangeably. For the purposes of this Practice

TMT analysis: In Southgate v Graham [2024] EWHC 1692 (Ch), the High Court addressed an appeal from the County Court concerning inter alia the appropriate date for assessing damages in a cryptocurrency loan dispute. Initially, the County Court determined that the damages should be based on the cryptocurrency’s fiat value at the breach date. Due to the volatility of the cryptocurrency, this decision would have resulted in a significantly lower fiat damages award than if the valuation were based on a later date. The High Court allowed the valuation date part of the appeal, directing a further hearing to establish the appropriate date. Dan Wyatt and Christopher Whitehouse, partner and senior associate of RPC analyse the crypto damages quantification in Southgate v Graham.

What does this Practice Note cover? This Practice Note provides an overview of the legal, regulatory, and contractual issues relevant to crypto derivatives in the UK, with a particular focus on property treatment, collateralisation, standardisation through ISDA, and the UK regulatory framework. This Practice Note is primarily concerned with derivatives that reference native cryptoassets, such as Bitcoin and Ether. These products are widely traded on liquid, decentralised markets and exhibit significant price volatility. These characteristics create strong market incentives for trading and speculation, while also generating demand for hedging tools to manage price risk and facilitate price discovery. In turn, this has driven the development of standardised derivatives markets around these assets. What are crypto derivatives? Crypto derivatives are financial contracts whose value is derived from an underlying digital (or crypto) asset. In practice, most such products reference specific ‘cryptoassets’—for example, Bitcoin or Ether—but the same principles can apply to other digital representations of value used as underlying assets. The terms ‘digital asset’ and ‘cryptoasset’ are often used interchangeably. The term ‘digital asset’ is generally used in a broad or

Arbitration differs from litigation because it provides a private forum for the resolution of disputes, as opposed to proceedings in open court. It is widely used in sectors such as construction, shipping, sports, and energy-industries that are typically international and involve high‑value transactions. It is therefore unsurprising that parties to cryptocurrency and blockchain‑related disputes are increasingly doing likewise. Its core advantages are flexibility, confidentiality, and easier cross‑border enforceability, which align with the needs of the crypto sector. Arbitration enables parties to appoint decision-makers with expertise in blockchain technology, smart contracts and digital asset markets–expertise that may not be available in all national courts. Arbitration is adaptable, allowing disputes to be resolved faster than court proceedings. Speed is especially important where digital assets have been misappropriated and risk dissipation. Confidentiality is another benefit, as arbitration allows proceedings and awards to remain private, protecting sensitive proprietary information such as code or algorithms. Finally, arbitration can mitigate the jurisdictional challenges prevalent

Law360: Binance Holdings Ltd must face a £9bn proposed class action brought by investors after a tribunal dismissed the cryptocurrency exchange's application to strike out the claim, finding the evidence 'just about' shows the case has a realistic chance of success.

Law360, Expert Analysis: On 26 May 2026, the UK announced a new package of sanctions targeting crypto-asset exchanges, payment networks and financial infrastructure alleged to have facilitated Russian sanctions evasion. Thomas Cattee, partner at Gherson, examines the UK’s latest sanctions measures targeting crypto-assets, including the evolving compliance expectations for crypto-asset businesses and the broader implications for sanctions enforcement.

Corporate Crime analysis: Matthew Cowie and Ulrich Schmidt of Rahman Ravelli review UK law enforcement powers to seize cryptoassets in criminal prosecutions and civil recovery proceedings and conclude that enforcement powers to access non-custodial crypto wallets are limited where criminals refuse to divulge their private keys.

MLex: EU ministers have welcomed new rules to fight dirty cash, following an agreement reached in the early hours of today on the sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. The new legislation will introduce tighter legislation for the crypto sector, requiring crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) to conduct customer checks and report suspicious activities.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case considers the circumstances in which a party to proceedings can rely on findings of fact by other decision makers, such as judgments from different jurisdictions involving the same or related parties. Mr Justice Mellor considered whether the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn would preclude reliance on such material in the context of a preliminary issue, or whether the material was 'plainly relevant' to the question of whether a preliminary issue trial should be ordered. Having considered the facts of the case and the relevant case law, Mellor J ordered that the disputed material should be permitted and should not be struck out: reliance on the material would not offend against the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn in the context of the applications in question. Written by Charlotte Clayson, partner at Trowers & Hamlins LLP.

Law360: A judge at a London court ruled on 12 September 2024 that a victim of crypto-fraud had failed to trace the stolen money to an exchange in Thailand, the first ruling to deal with the status and treatment of cryptocurrency in English law after a full trial.

Law360, London: An appeals court on 21 May 2025 rejected most of a £10bn class action against Binance for delisting a bitcoin alternative, ruling that investors were not entitled to claim damages from the cryptocurrency exchange on the basis they lost out on its future speculative value.