BSV Claims Limited (Appellant) v Bittylicious Limited and others (Respondents)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0120

Parties

Appellant(s)

BSV Claims Limited

Respondent(s)

Bittylicious Limited

Payward Limited and Payward Inc

Shapeshift Global Limited

Shapeshift AG

Binance Europe Services Limited

Issue

(1) Are holders of a cryptocurrency known as Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) who claim that BSVs value reduced after it was delisted by cryptocurrency exchanges required to mitigate their loss by selling BSV and buying another similar cryptocurrency? (2) Can BSV holders claim for the lost chance for BSV to develop into a top tier cryptocurrency?

Facts

This appeal concerns a cryptocurrency known as BSV. The Appellant, BSV Claims Limited, is the Class Representative in collective proceedings on behalf of UK-based holders of BSV. The Respondents are cryptocurrency exchanges which enable cryptocurrencies to be traded. The first widely known cryptocurrency was Bitcoin, which was created in 2009 by the pseudonymous inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto. The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is unknown. Since 2015, Dr Craig Wright, a supporter of BSV, has claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto. By a series of tweets between 12 April and 19 April 2019, the Respondents objected to Dr Wright’s conduct, announced their intention to delist BSV from their exchanges, and called upon other cryptocurrency exchanges to do the same. The Respondents delisted BSV between 15 April 2019 and 5 June 2019 (“delisting events”). The Appellant alleges that the Respondents’ tweets and the delisting events contravened Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) and/or the Chapter I prohibition in section 2 Competition Act 1998 (“the Act”). The Appellant issued proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) seeking a collective proceedings order. The proposed class was broken down into three sub-classes according to whether, following the delisting events, proposed class members sold their BSV (“Sub-Class A”); held onto their BSV (“Sub-Class B”); or were users of the Second, Fourth and Sixth Respondents who lost access to their BSV (“Sub-Class C”). The Appellant relies on two main categories of loss: (i) an “immediate and persistent effect” arising from the fall in the price of BSV in the immediate aftermath of the delisting events and (ii) the “foregone growth effect”, resulting from what is described as being a lost opportunity for BSV to develop into a top tier cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin. On 16 February 2024, Binance issued an application in the CAT for strike out and/or reverse summary judgment in respect of the “foregone growth effect” claim. Binance argued that (i) the “forgone growth effect” is irrecoverable as there was nothing preventing BSV holders from mitigating any future losses by selling their BSV coins after the alleged infringing events and purchasing other cryptocurrencies; and (ii) Sub-Class B cannot bring an alternative loss of chance claim. The CAT struck out of the loss of chance claim but declined to strike out Sub-Class B’s claim for the forgone growth effect. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.