Following the decision of Master Clark in the case of
Tulip Trading Limited v Bitcoin Association for BSV
[2022] EWHC 141 (Ch) the High Court has confirmed that
crypto-currency is not adequate 'security' to satisfy an
order that a party provide providing security for costs.
Whilst this was the first occasion in which a claimant has
sought to post crypto currency as security for costs in the English
Courts, this is likely to be increasingly considered as a desirable
option for claimants given the growing prevalence of, and support
for, crypto currencies. Whilst in this instance the Court rejected
the use of crypto currency, on the basis that the terms put forward
by Tulip did not fully meet the risk of the volatility of Bitcoin,
it does not rule out the possibility of crypto assets being posted
as security if sufficient provision could be made to mitigate
against the volatility of these assets. This is likely to be an
area in which there will be significant
