Key Facts
- •The case involves the 'Identity Issue': whether Dr Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.
- •Two claims are central: the COPA claim (Dr Wright is not Satoshi) and the BTC Core claim (preliminary issue on the Identity Issue).
- •Three main parties: Dr Wright (and his companies), COPA (industry body), and the Developers (individuals maintaining Bitcoin).
- •Dr Wright sought permission to use 'Additional Documents' (97 documents, LaTeX files, and assignment documents) discovered late in the process.
- •Dr Wright also applied to adjourn the trial, originally scheduled for January 15, 2024.
- •COPA challenged the authenticity of the Additional Documents, alleging forgery and manipulation.
- •The trial was originally scheduled for 26 days in January/February 2024 with closings in March 2024.
Legal Principles
Overriding Objective: Cases must be dealt with justly and at proportionate cost, ensuring fairness and equality.
CPR 1.1
Adjournment: Discretionary, granted if refusal would deny justice or cause severe prejudice. Fairness to both parties is key.
Barclays Bank v Shetty [2022] EWHC 19 (Comm), Teinaz v Wandsworth LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 1040, Terluk v Berezovsky [2010] EWCA Civ 1345, Solanki v Intercity Telecom Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 101, Bilta (UK) Ltd v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 221
Additional Documents: Permission needed to rely on undisclosed documents. Consideration of reasons for late disclosure, practicality, and trial impact.
CPR 57AD, para. 12.5, La Micro Group (UK) v La Micro Group Inc [2022] EWHC 588 (Ch)
Evidential Value: Caution needed before summarily dismissing allegations of serious wrongdoing (e.g., forgery). Opportunity to rebut allegations is crucial.
Allied Fort Insurance Services Ltd v Ahmed [2015] EWCA Civ 841, Wrexham Association Football Club Ltd v Crucialmove Ltd [2007] BCC 139
Expert Evidence: Proportionality is key. Not all statements containing opinions constitute expert evidence requiring full CPR Part 35 compliance.
Fenty v Arcadia [2013] EWHC 1945 (Ch)
Confidentiality: Balancing need for disclosure with protection of confidential information. Standard confidentiality terms may suffice.
Oneplus v Mitsubishi [2020] EWCA Civ 1562, [2021] FSR 13
Outcomes
Dr Wright granted permission to rely on some/all Additional Documents, subject to conditions.
Importance of documents to Dr Wright's case, serious allegations of forgery requiring trial determination, need for proportionality in document selection.
Trial adjourned to commence February 5, 2024.
Balancing fairness to Dr Wright with the need to avoid undue delay and prejudice to other parties. Active case management aimed at enabling a fair trial within a revised timeframe.
Dr Wright to serve reply witness statements in two tranches (by December 21st and January 12th).
To allow for a fair and just trial within the new timeframe.
COPA's forgery allegations limited to 20 documents, with allowance for 20 more concerning Additional Documents.
To manage the scope of the trial effectively while considering the new evidence.
Developers granted further security for costs (£800,000).
Significant risk that Dr Wright may not be able to pay costs if he loses; the Developers are entitled to full representation at trial given the circumstances.
Dr Wright to pay COPA's costs for ASD evidence after September 21, 2023.
Dr Wright's failure to properly instruct his expert, engage with COPA's offer, and potential expert-shopping.
COPA not required to cross-examine on specified passages in Mr. Gao's report deemed irrelevant to the Identity Issue.
Irrelevance of the specific passages to the central issue of the case.
Costs of Dr Wright's application for Additional Documents and adjournment are costs in the case.
While Dr Wright partially succeeded, the arguments advanced by COPA provided essential context for determining the trial proceedings.
Developers awarded £20,000 costs from the existing security for costs.
Developers' successful application for further security for costs.