This is really interesting (and a very nuanced legal point). What the court DID NOT say: It did not rule that Bitcoin is not property. It is (and the legislation makes that clear. See the Property (Digital Assets) Act 2025 linked in the thread). A court cannot overrule legislation. But remember – English law sees Bitcoin as INTANGIBLE property. The specific cause of action in this case was called the tort of conversion. This is a technical civil ‘wrong’, that happens when one person intentionally interferes with another person’s property in a way that completely deprives the owner of its use or possession. What happened in this case was that the seed phrase for the claimant’s @Trezor was accessed by his estranged wife, and she then swept his wallet. The tort of conversion MIGHT have enabled him to bring a claim against her for the lost property. The kicker? The tort of conversion ONLY applies where a tangible, physical asset is involved. The law may over time evolve to change this, but at the moment, other causes of action must be used to bring his claim, such as unjust enrichment and proprietary restitution. TLDR? The court did not say that Bitcoin wasn’t property. They said, correctly, that it is not PHYSICAL property, and that therefore the specific legal claim, and the specific legal remedy, sought by the complainant were not applicable in this case.