In Poulton v Conrad (Case No. H1/2026), the High Court of Australia is considering whether Bitcoin constitutes property capable of possession at common law, and whether the torts of conversion and detinue apply to Bitcoin holdings. Special leave to appeal was granted on 5 February 2026, following the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania's decision in Poulton v Conrad [2025] TASFC 7. Oral arguments have proceeded before the Court. No judgment has been issued.
The legal question turns on the common-law classification of property. The traditional binary divides property into choses in possession (tangible things capable of physical delivery) and choses in action (intangible claims enforceable by legal action). In [2025] TASFC 7, the Full Court held that control over private keys is sufficient to establish possession of Bitcoin, and endorsed the view that digital assets constitute a third category of property beyond that classical binary. The High Court appeal asks whether that third-category analysis is correct, and whether conversion and detinue, both torts premised on interference with possessed property, extend to Bitcoin held through private key control.
The outcome directly affects crypto exchanges, custodians, wallet providers, and individual holders seeking to recover misappropriated Bitcoin or assert proprietary claims in insolvency proceedings. A positive finding would allow claimants to sue in conversion or detinue, with the limitation periods and insolvency priority rankings those torts carry. A negative finding restricts them to contractual or constructive-trust remedies. The Australian Taxation Office applied to intervene in May 2026, signalling that the property classification also affects whether Bitcoin disposals constitute capital gains tax events under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.
No judgment has been issued. The ATO's intervention introduces a question the Court may address in its reasons: how a positive property finding interacts with ATO assessments of Bitcoin disposals as CGT events. A High Court ruling on either point will be persuasive authority in the United Kingdom, Singapore, and New Zealand, where lower appellate courts have reached broadly similar conclusions on the property question but no apex court has ruled.
Licentium advises clients on legal risks relating to digital asset classification, custody, and proprietary claims across common-law and civil-law jurisdictions. We may assist with this matter directly or through our partner network. Work we undertake includes legal opinions on crypto asset property status, insolvency-related digital asset recovery advice, digital asset regulatory strategy, and cross-border crypto dispute advisory.
Source: High Court of Australia, Case No. H1/2026, Poulton v Conrad (2026)