From: Steve
Hedley <S.Hedley@ucc.ie>
Sent: Tuesday
11 February 2025 18:51
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Bitcoin
and Restitution
A
postscript to Howells v Newport City Council, recently discussed in this
forum. As the article notes, the case is under appeal.
Man
who binned 7,500 Bitcoin drive now wants to buy entire landfill to dig it up
(The Register, 11/2/25)
From: Samuel Beswick <sbeswick@sjd.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Friday 10 January 2025 21:28
To: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re: Bitcoin and Restitution
[EXTERNAL] This email was sent from outside of UCC.
It also has a third thing, which I am interested in: the claimant's "desperate argument" to extend time for filing suit in reliance on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980. There's been a flurry of case law on limitation discoverability over the past four years which I canvas in the next LMCLQ issue. The court here properly dismissed that argument.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 at 06:09, Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
An amusing case, combining two of the things I am interested in.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2025/22.html
The claimant, by mistake, in 2013 deposits a hard drive containing the key to his Bitcoin wallet in a landfill site in Newport. Claims that the Bitcoin now worth in excess of 600m (more than the value of the landfill site. Or, indeed, Newport.)
Seeks a declaration that either the council digs up the site to find it, or allows his team of experts to do so.
Claim is struck out. Lots of proprietary restitutionary stuff.
Rob