The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) Report on Control of Digital Assets

On 19 March 2026, the UKJT published its Report on Control of Digital Assets (the Report). Prepared by a panel of lawyers and technological experts, the Report is not a legal opinion; it is a practical, technically informed reference guide designed to help judges, practitioners, and court users understand the foundational concepts underpinning digital assets. For litigators and arbitration practitioners, it is an essential resource that will shape how cryptoasset disputes are argued and decided under English law.

 

Why the Report matters

The Report arrives at a pivotal moment. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 confirmed that cryptoassets can constitute a distinct “third category” of personal property - neither things in possession nor things in action. However, the Act was deliberately minimalist. Parliament chose not to define the contours of the new category, leaving the heavy lifting to the common law. This means courts will increasingly be called upon to resolve disputes involving digital assets using principles that are still developing. The concept of "control" sits at the heart of that development.

Control is the lynchpin because it performs a role analogous to “possession” for tangible goods. For traditional personal property, possession acts as an intermediary between physical facts about objects and the legal rules of property. For digital assets, control does the same work and bridges the gap between the underlying technology and the legal framework. Understanding how control operates in practice is therefore essential for any practitioner advising on ownership, transfer, or enforcement.

The urgency of that understanding was laid bare in Ping Fai Yuen v Fun Yung Li & Anor [2026] EWHC 532 (KB), which we discuss here. Here, the court struck out the claimant’s conversion claim, holding that the tort remains confined to tangible chattels and could not be extended to intangible digital assets. The judge acknowledged the potential for new causes of action to develop by analogy with conversion, but left that question for another day. The judge also noted that the decision was reached without the benefit of detailed technical analysis, observing that bitcoin storage was “not a familiar area”. The Report directly addresses this gap by equipping courts with the technical literacy they need.

At the same time, international competition is intensifying. Jurisdictions including the United States and the UAE have invested in specialist judicial training and dedicated dispute resolution structures for digital asset matters. Against that backdrop, the Report can be seen as an important step in ensuring that England and Wales remains credible and competitive as a forum for cryptoasset disputes.

 

Control in the Blockchain Context

The Report approaches the concept of control by building intuition from first principles. It begins with physical objects and then considers traditional intangibles, such as a bank account, before explaining how control operates differently in the context of blockchain. The Report draws a distinction that has, in its words, “led astray Courts in other jurisdictions”, i.e., knowing the password to a bank account is not genuine control, because deleting a ledger entry does not extinguish the underlying debt. In contrast, control over a private key gives the holder genuine control, such as the ability to move a digital asset independently of a court decision, in the same way that a person in possession of a tangible object can move it in the real world.

From that foundation, the Report examines the various models of control found across the digital asset ecosystem:

• Direct control through private keys, which most closely resembles physical possession.
• Shared and multi-party control, including multisignature wallets requiring multiple keyholders to authorise a transaction.
• Smart contract-based control, where automated protocols govern when/how assets can be moved.
• Delegated and layered control, such as custodial arrangements where a third party holds keys on behalf of the beneficial owner.
• Privacy-oriented structures, which introduce additional complexity around tracing and attribution.

Across each of these scenarios, the Report emphasises that control operates differently depending on the underlying technology and governance structure. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. Courts should assess control on a context-specific, system-by-system basis, engaging directly with how control is actually exercised in the particular digital asset system before them.

 

Practical Implications

The Report has immediate practical relevance for anyone litigating or arbitrating cryptoasset disputes.

• Framing proprietary claims. The Ping Fai Yuen judgment confirms that, for now, traditional torts are unavailable for wrongful interference with digital assets. Proprietary restitution, unjust enrichment and breach of confidence remain the primary routes to recovery. The Report’s analysis of control will be directly relevant to establishing the factual foundation of such claims: did the claimant have control of the asset, how was that control lost, and who now exercises it?
• Evidential strategy. The Report provides a common vocabulary and conceptual framework for courts to engage with the technical evidence that cryptoasset disputes inevitably involve. The Report will doubtless be used as a reference point in preparing expert evidence and submissions, particularly when explaining to a court how private keys or custodial structures operate.
• Interim relief and asset tracing. Applications for freezing orders, proprietary injunctions, and disclosure orders in cryptoasset cases frequently turn on questions of who controls the relevant wallets and private keys. The Report’s treatment of delegated, layered, and privacy-oriented control structures will be essential reading when advising on the prospects of interim relief and the enforceability of disclosure obligations.

 

Conclusion

The Report deserves close attention. While it is not binding, it is authoritative, prepared under the auspices of the UKJT and intended to be referred to by courts as they develop the law in this area. In a landscape where the law and underlying technology is developing rapidly, the Report should assist in bridging the gap between technical complexity and judicial comprehension.

For clients weighing forum options, the Report strengthens the case for England and Wales as a jurisdiction that is actively the legal infrastructure to resolve digital asset disputes competently and coherently. This is the particularly the case in international arbitration, where confidence in the sophistication of the legal framework can be a decisive factor in selecting choice of seat and governing law.

If you would like to discuss the contents of this article, please contact a member of the DLA Piper Fintech team.

DLA Piper Fintech Team: Paul Landless, Sohail Ali, Chris Harvey, Sam Gokarn-Millington, Sophie Lessar, Umah Kathirgamathamby, Georgia Hughes, Suman Khurana, Tom Laidler, Pippa Hill, Dominic Olins and Alexia Meade.