PI Brief Update

Developing the Law Bit by Bit: High Court Rules on Disclosure Following Bitcoin Theft - Georgina Pressdee, Temple Garden Chambers

17/06/26. On 5 June 2026, Judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, handed down his judgment in Wilden v Persons Unknown [2026] EWHC 1355 (KB). The issue for determination was whether the Claimant’s two applications – for a freezing injunction against the First Defendant (a person unknown) and an order for disclosure against the Second Defendant (Huobi Global SA) – should continue to trial.

Background

The Claimant had been fraudulently induced by the First Defendant to transfer to him over €2.5 million worth of Bitcoin. Forensic tracing had determined that the assets had ultimately been transferred to infrastructure associated with the Second Defendant’s currency exchange (HTX). As a centralised cryptocurrency exchange, HTX would be expected to operate under Know-Your-Customer and Anti-Money-Laundering procedures, enabling it to identify the account holder. However, HTX was on a warning list for operating without proper authorisation and was the subject of legal proceedings brought by the FCA. When the Claimant contacted HTX asking it to identify the relevant accounts, HTX was uncooperative and did not provide any meaningful assistance, even after the Claimant obtained an urgent interim order for disclosure.

Ruling

Judge Vassall-Adams KC determined that it was appropriate to grant both orders. In respect of the order for disclosure, this was made pursuant to the Court’s jurisdiction under Bankers Trust Co v Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274, which empowers the Court to make an order requiring a third party to provide information about a Claimant’s property or other assets. It arises where there is strong evidence that the Claimant’s property has been misappropriated and may intrude into what would otherwise be confidential customer information (Bankers Trust Co v Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274 at [44]). Five criteria must be satisfied (Bankers Trust at [13]-[19]):

1. There must be good grounds for concluding that the money/assets belonged to the Claimant.
2. There must be a real prospect that the information sought will lead to location or preservation of those assets.
3. So far as possible, the order must be directed at uncovering particular assets and not wider than necessary.
4. The interests of the Claimant must be balanced against possible detriment to respondent in complying, including the infringement of privacy/confidentiality.
5. The applicant must provide undertakings to pay the expenses of respondent in complying and compensate the respondent in damages.

Judge Vassall-Adams KC considered that the first four criteria were easily satisfied. When it came to criterion five, the learned Judge commented that –

“The Claimant has given appropriate undertakings to Huobi, although his ability to meet the financial undertakings is limited.There is authority that a freezing injunction should not be refused solely on the basis that a Claimant’s lack of means makes an undertaking of limited value, where the other criteria are satisfied: Allen & Ors v Jambo Holdings [1980] 1 WLR 1252 (CA). Given that the Claimant’s lack of means is because this fraud deprived him of his life savings, it is plainly appropriate to accept his financial undertakings even if they are of limited value.”.

Comment

Where an applicant is of limited means, it would appear that the requirement to provide an undertaking can easily become redundant. In this instance the learned Judge relied on the cause of action against the First Defendant being the reason for the Claimant’s limited financial means. When phrased in this way, the Judgment could have wider implications. In the context of personal injury, it could be argued that the cause of action has deprived the Claimant of the ability to offer a meaningful undertaking where the Claimant is no longer able to work or has had to pay for injury-related costs such as treatment, prosthetics or home adaptations.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/ShutterWorx