- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
A British software engineer has filed a £20.4 million claim against HDR Global Trading, the operator of the now-closed BitMEX exchange, seeking the return of 324.8 Bitcoin (BTC) he lost trading perpetual swaps between 2018 and 2022.
Lewis Barber argues the contracts are unenforceable because BitMEX was not authorised by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). BitMEX says no claim has been served, and the allegations are unproven.
Barber’s claim concerns 1,053 losing transactions from approximately 2,294 trades conducted across five BitMEX accounts between 2018 and 2022.
All the disputed transactions involved perpetual swaps, cryptocurrency derivatives that resemble futures contracts but do not have a fixed expiry date. These instruments allow traders to speculate on price movements without necessarily owning the underlying asset, while leverage can magnify both profits and losses.
The lawsuit argues that the contracts constituted regulated financial activities under UK law and that BitMEX lacked the authorization required to offer them to Barber in Britain.
Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the claim contends, the disputed agreements cannot be enforced against him because of the alleged regulatory breach. Barber is therefore seeking the return of his Bitcoin rather than simply compensation calculated from the outcome of individual trades.
The allegations remain unproven, and the court has yet to determine whether the contracts are unenforceable or whether Barber is entitled to recover the claimed amount.
The dispute also draws attention to BitMEX’s previous regulatory history in the UK.
In March 2020, the FCA published a warning stating that BitMEX was not authorized by the regulator and that it appeared to be targeting UK consumers. The regulator warned that people dealing with unauthorized firms would not have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service or protection through the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in the circumstances described.
Barber’s legal claim alleges that BitMEX continued to make its services accessible to UK users, allowed new customers to identify Britain as their country of residence and promoted its products internationally. It also points to an advertisement published in The Times in January 2019.
These details form part of the argument that the exchange presented itself as able to trade lawfully with UK customers despite allegedly lacking the required authorization.
Barber is also pursuing damages for deceit. His claim alleges that BitMEX implicitly represented that it could lawfully enter into the transactions, despite allegedly knowing it lacked the necessary permission.
His solicitors reportedly sent a notice rescinding the disputed trades in December 2025. The claim has been filed, but The Guardian reported that it had not yet been formally served on HDR Global Trading. A BitMEX spokesperson told the newspaper: “No such claim has been served on HDR Global Trading Limited.”
The wider implications of the case may prove more significant than Barber’s individual demand.
Gareth Keillor, a partner at Seladore Legal, the firm representing Barber, said other UK-based individuals could have entered into similar contracts with BitMEX. He cautioned that any prospective claim would depend on the particular circumstances and trading history of each individual.
The firm has suggested that potential claims could total hundreds of millions of pounds, although that figure remains an estimate rather than an established liability.
BitMEX is also facing a proposed class action in New York alleging Bitcoin theft and insider trading. That separate case names co-founders Ben Delo, Arthur Hayes and Samuel Reed; its allegations have not been established as facts.
The exchange has a separate history of US anti-money-laundering enforcement. Its three co-founders pleaded guilty in 2022 to Bank Secrecy Act violations linked to failures at the exchange, and President Donald Trump pardoned them in March 2025. BitMEX itself pleaded guilty to Bank Secrecy Act violations in 2024 and was ordered to pay $100 million in January 2025.
The exchange ceased trading on September 23, 2026, following a closure announcement in July. Its shutdown does not, by itself, resolve the outstanding legal questions surrounding its earlier operations.
For traders who may have used the platform, the case highlights the importance of examining the terms of their transactions, the applicable regulatory framework and the records supporting any potential claim.
Ultimately, the dispute over Unlicensed derivatives will turn on the court’s assessment of the contracts, the regulatory requirements that applied at the time and whether Barber can establish his entitlement to recover the Bitcoin he is seeking. Until those questions are decided, the case remains an allegation-driven legal battle rather than a finding of liability.
Copyright © 2025 - The Bit Gazette.
