Dr Craig Wright v Peter McCormack
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Julian Knowles |
| Judgment Date | 08 October 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 2671 (QB) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO.: QB-2019-001430 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2021] EWHC 2671 (QB)
Mr Justice Julian Knowles
CLAIM NO.: QB-2019-001430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Adam Wolanski QC, Greg Callus and Lily Walker-Parr (instructed by ONTIER LLP) for the Claimant
Catrin Evans QC and Ben Silverstone (instructed by RPC) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 16 and 18 February 2021
Approved Judgment
Introduction
This is a claim for libel. The words complained of by the Claimant are contained in fourteen tweets (Publications 1–10 and 12–15) and a YouTube video (Publication 16). The Defendant admits publication. For reasons I will come to, Publication 11 is no longer relied on by the Claimant. The case has a complicated and protracted procedural history. The papers before me on this PTR run to several thousand pages. There are several sets of written submissions from both sides and a number of different versions of the pleadings upon which I was being asked to adjudicate, some which were served shortly before, and even during, the hearing. I also received further submissions and substantial further documentation after the hearing.
The PTR was ordered by Nicol J on 4 February 2021. He was keen to emphasise that the PTR should bring finality to the pleaded cases, and the evidence which would be admitted to prove those cases. Once the ambit of the Defence is ascertained (in whatever amended form), a reliable trial estimate can be given and a trial listing obtained.
Nicol J's order provided for the determination of a number of applications, but in the event the only ones I am required to decide are as follows:
a. The Claimant's First Amendment Application, dated 14 July 2020:
(i) The first part of this is an application by the Claimant to add Publications 12 to 16 to the Claim Form. In their original form, the Particulars of Claim (POC) referred to Publications 1 – 10. These were served in May 2019. After that, the Defendant published Publications 12 – 16. In late 2019 the Claimant circulated draft Amended POC (APOC) containing Publications 11 – 16. The Defendant consented to these amendments in December 2019. For reasons I will explain, no application was made by the Claimant at that time to amend the Claim Form to match the APOC. The part of the First Amendment Application therefore seeks to achieve consistency between the APOC and the Claim Form so that the same publications are set out in each.
(ii) The second part is an application dated 8 February 2021 to amend the First Amendment Application (if necessary) to add an argument based on s 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 ( LA 1980).
b. The Claimant's Third Amendment Application, dated 23 November 2020:
(i) This seeks to remedy discrepancies in the time stamps of Publications 1 – 10, as between the times pleaded in the APOC when the tweets were said to have been sent, and the times given for these tweets on the Claim Form.
c. An application by the Claimant to strike-out:
(i) parts of the draft Re-Amended Defence. The version of this pleading I have worked from was supplied to me in an electronic file called ‘UPDATED 170221 Appendix C Claimant's colour coded revised draft ReAmDef with key v3.’ I will call this ‘Appendix C’. The passages in dispute, with each party's summary position on them, is contained in an Agreed Table contained in a bundle which was supplied by the Claimant after the hearing. (Confusingly, the version of this pleading in the bundle as Item 9 on the Index is entitled ‘second version’, however it appears to be the same as the ‘v3’ Appendix C version I have already referred to).
(ii) parts of the Defendant's Third Witness Statement of 12 February 2021. In line with the relevant file name, I will call this ‘Appendix B’. Subject to these objections, the Claimant does not object to the Defendant's late application to serve this statement and for relief from sanctions (Supplementary Skeleton Argument, [56]).
d. An application by the Defendant to re-amend his Amended Defence. There is no formal application to re-amend, but the Claimant is not insisting (Claimant's Closing Submissions, [14(a)(iii)]). There is an overlap between this application and the Claimant's strike-out application in relation to this pleading.
There are various costs matters which will fall to be dealt with on a later occasion (Claimant's Closing Submissions, [3]).
Factual and procedural background
The factual background to this claim involves cryptocurrencies and blockchain. A cryptocurrency is a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange, in which individual coin ownership records are stored in a ledger existing in a computerised database using cryptography to secure transactions, to control the creation of additional coins, and to verify the transfer of coin ownership. It does not exist in physical form (as paper money does) and is typically not issued by a central authority. Bitcoin is probably the best-known cryptocurrency. A blockchain is a list of digital records, called blocks, that are linked together using cryptography. In simple terms, blockchain is the technology that enables the existence of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.
The Claimant's case in outline
The following is taken mainly from the APOC. It is not agreed but gives a flavour of the Claimant's case.
The Claimant is an Australian computer scientist and businessman based in England and Wales. He is active within the cryptocurrency sphere, running a number of cryptocurrency and blockchain businesses.
The Defendant is a podcaster and a blogger who specialises in publishing content about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, including on Twitter, where he has tens of thousands of followers. He also describes himself as a journalist.
Satoshi Nakamoto is the name used by the person or persons who developed Bitcoin and published some of the first work about it and about blockchains. It is presumed to be a pseudonym. The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is a topic of considerable interest in the cryptocurrency community. In this judgment I will refer to this person or group as ‘Satoshi’.
In summary, the Claimant says that the Defendant's publications accused him of having fraudulently claimed to be Satoshi, and that they caused him serious harm as a consequence, both to his reputation generally and also in specific ways (eg, that they resulted in him being disinvited from conferences).
I will not set out all of the publications in issue, but just give a few examples to give the flavour of the Claimant's case. In the following paragraphs the times of publication are as given in the APOC.
On 29 March 2019 at 8:17pm the Defendant published a tweet (Publication 1, APOC [4] et seq). This began with a re-tweet by the Defendant of a tweet by someone called Calvin Ayre:
“Craig [Wright, ie, the Claimant] has started filing lawsuit against those falsely denying he is Satoshi …. they can all have a day in court to try to prove their fake case but the judge will rule that Craig invented Bitcoin because he did and he can prove it.”
Below this was another tweet by Calvin Ayre which the Defendant included in his tweet:
“Calvin Ayre @CalvinAyre
yup … Dr Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto … and #BSV is the only real #Bitcoin. All others are attacking Craig to sell their dysfunctional snake oil crypto products. Craig has proven this to me directly in a number of ways.”
The Defendant then wrote:
“Replying to @Calvin Ayre
Can I go first?
Craig Wright is not Satoshi Craig Wright is not Satoshi …”
The phrase ‘Craig Wright is not Satoshi’ was then repeated a number of times by the Defendant in the tweet.
In [5] of his APOC the Claimant alleges that by way of innuendo these words meant and were understood to mean that he had fraudulently claimed to be Satoshi.
The following Particulars of Innuendo are then pleaded:
“5.1 The individual, or group of individuals behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto (‘Satoshi’) is/are generally accepted within the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency community as the original creator, or one of the originals creators, of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin.
5.2. This would have been known to a substantial but unquantifiable number of unidentifiable readers of the First Publication, and these readers would have understood the words complained of herein to bear the meaning set out above.”
On 10 April 2019 at 1:47pm the Defendant published a tweet (Publication 2, APOC [6] et seq):
“[retweet of a tweet by @CalvinAyre]:
Calvin Ayre @CalvinAyre Apr 10
[photograph of the Claimant in a group]
Craig and I polishing our muskets at today's Troll Hunting meeting in London. #Craigis-Satoshi.
…
[tweet by the Defendant]:
Replying to @CalvinAyre
‘Craig Wright is not Satohis! [sic] When do I get sued?’”
Paragraph 7 essentially repeats [5]. The following Particulars of Innuendo are then given. Paragraph 7.1 repeats [5.1]. Paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 aver:
“7.2. On and prior to 10 April Calvin Ayre had made it publicly known that the Claimant was intending to bring proceedings for libel against individuals who had alleged on Twitter that the Claimant had fraudulently claimed to be Satoshi.
7.3. The photograph which featured in the Second Publication was of the Claimant, Calvin Ayre and a group of lawyers. The reference to ‘Troll Hunting’ in the Second Publication was a reference to the pursuit by means of libel proceedings of those who had ‘trolled’ the Claimant on Twitter by accusing him of falsely claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto.”
Publication 12 (APOC, [24C] et seq) is pleaded as follows:
“24C. On 22 August 2019 at 4:54 am the Defendant first published a tweet (‘The Twelfth Publication’). The Twelfth Publication remains online and is accessible via...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siobhain Crosbie v Caroline Ley
...risks falling between the various stools (see the explanation of the so-called ‘rule in Dingle’ set out in Wright v McCormack [2021] EWHC 2671 (QB) from paragraph 149 onwards). 52 Even before the introduction of the new threshold requirement in s 1, assessment of harm to reputation was nev......
-
John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Sonia Vanessa Poulton
...arises out of that communication”: Economou at [49]. 93 CPR 17.4(2) was considered recently by Julian Knowles J in Wright v McCormack [2021] EWHC 2671 at [118]–[136]. There, he granted permission to the claimant to advance certain new claims under CPR 17.4(2). However this was because of th......
-
President Donald J. Trump v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd
...and the court should resolve obvious inconsistencies. In support of the same argument, the Claimant also relies on Wright v McCormack [2021] EWHC 2671 (QB), [2022] EMLR 10 in which Julian Knowles J applied Evans, and the statement in the White Book of the principle established by that case......
-
Dr Craig Steven Wright v Magnus Granath
...Julian Knowles J handed down a very detailed judgment dealing with various case management and pleading issues: Wright v McCormack [2021] EWHC 2671 (QB). The defendant's application for permission to appeal was refused on paper by Warby LJ on 27 January 2022. The claim is listed for trial ......