Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright & Ors
[2023] EWHC 3287 (Ch)
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright (POC Amendment)
24 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2642 (Ch)
High Court
Someone sued someone else for lying about being the inventor of Bitcoin. The court let them add some accusations of faking documents, but not others because it would take too long to deal with them all.
Key Facts
- •COPA claims Dr. Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.
- •Dr. Wright claims he is Satoshi Nakamoto.
- •COPA seeks to amend its Particulars of Claim to include allegations of forgery and plagiarism against Dr. Wright.
- •The amendment includes allegations of forgery relating to numerous documents disclosed by Dr. Wright, many of which he claims support his identity as Satoshi.
- •The amendment also includes an allegation of plagiarism related to Dr. Wright's LLM thesis.
- •The trial is scheduled for January 15, 2024.
Legal Principles
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed to ensure the real dispute is adjudicated, provided prejudice to the respondent can be compensated for and the public interest isn't harmed.
Cobbold v Greenwich LBC (9.8.99)
The court balances injustice to the applicant if the amendment is refused against prejudice to the respondent if it's allowed.
Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International [2015] EWHC 759 (Comm)
Late amendments, especially those threatening the trial date, require strong justification.
Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International [2015] EWHC 759 (Comm)
Fraud must be distinctly alleged and proved; vague allegations are insufficient.
Davy v Garrett (1878), Armitage v Nurse & Ors [1998], Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 3) [2003]
Forgery, a species of fraud, requires specific pleading, detailing the intent to deceive.
Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, Kreditbank Cassel GmbH v Schenkers Ltd [1927]
Similar fact evidence is admissible if potentially probative and not unduly prejudicial or disruptive.
Signia Wealth Ltd v Vector Trustees Ltd [2018] EWHC 1040 (Ch)
Outcomes
Permission granted to amend the Particulars of Claim to add allegations of forgery.
The court found that allegations of forgery were implicit in COPA's initial case and that the amendment is essential to the core of their claim, however, the number of allegations is limited to 50 additional documents beyond those already challenged.
Permission denied to amend the Particulars of Claim to include an allegation of plagiarism.
The court considered the probative value of the similar fact evidence too slight to justify its inclusion, given the minimal risk of unfair prejudice and the slight burden on Dr. Wright.
Similar Cases
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright
[2023] EWHC 1894 (Ch)
Dr Craig Steven Wright & Anor v Coinbase Global, Inc & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1893 (Ch)
Qatar Investment and Project Development Holding Co & Anor v Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1916 (KB)
Steenbok Newco 10 Sarl & Anor v Formal Holdings Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1160 (Comm)