Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL] Special Public Bill Committee

The session scrutinised the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL] and debated whether digital assets and other modern objects should be treated as property, the merits of creating a third category of property rights, and how the drafting could affect cross-border and domestic dispute resolution. Key positions ranged from calls for certainty and expansion to cover future asset types (e.g., carbon credits) to arguments that the Bill is unnecessary, risks harmful signals about UK leadership in crypto, and could complicate litigation. Debates covered: whether a third category is needed or desirable, whether the Bill should be retrospective or prospective, drafting clarity (especially the use of 'things', 'things in possession', and 'things in action'), potential effects on London’s attractiveness as a dispute forum, and how the Bill interacts with other regimes (Singapore, Australia, Scotland) and existing legislation. There were proposed drafting amendments (e.g., removing parentheses around digital/electronic, or simplifying to a two-category model) and calls for cross-referencing other statutes and international practice. No explicit government commitment was articulated; witnesses offered divergent policy positions and practical drafting recommendations for potential parliamentary amendments.

This session examined the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL], with two expert panels (legal practitioners and academic/tech professionals). Witnesses debated whether digital assets merit a new third property right, or can be accommodated within existing Chooses in Action/Choice in Possession concepts. Key issues included: (1) whether the Bill is necessary, with some witnesses arguing for minimal statutory change to avoid diverging from common-law trajectories; (2) the potential costs and regulatory/commercial uncertainty of introducing a new category and associated custody/security regimes; (3) whether the Bill would enhance London’s status as a global litigation/jurisdiction hub or risk misalignment with other common-law jurisdictions; (4) how the Bill should be framed (prospective-only vs retrospective effects) and whether amendment(s) should be added to preserve judiciary flexibility to develop remedies; (5) how the Bill interacts with broader regulatory and international developments (e.g., Law Commission, UKJT guidance, US UCC Article 12, Singapore/Australia case law). Witnesses argued that the Bill could provide needed clarity and enable future-proofing, but warned of potential unintended consequences, cost, and divergence from established law unless carefully framed and complemented by guidance notes and future-focused amendments.

This session scrutinises the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill with Professor Sarah Green (Law Commission) and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Minister for Justice). Key focus areas include: (1) the Law Commission’s rationale for creating a third category of property to cover digital assets and the Bill’s aim to unlock common-law development rather than prescribe outcomes; (2) government benefits claimed from the Bill—legal certainty for digital assets, reduced litigation costs, and England & Wales as a hub for innovation; (3) cross-jurisdictional comparisons (US UCC, UNIDROIT principles, Dubai, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand) and how they influence England & Wales; (4) retroactivity and the Bill’s lack of a declaratory effect; (5) scope distinctions between digital vs electronic assets and what types of assets might fall under the third category; and (6) the potential extension to Northern Ireland. Government commitments asserted include recognition of digital assets by law, preservation of the UK as a leading jurisdiction for digital-asset disputes, and alignment with international norms via the Law Commission framework. The discussion also flags uncertainties around boundaries of the third category and the practical questions around passing digital assets via wills or probate, which the Bill does not directly settle.