Dr Craig Steven Wright v Persons Unknown

A party who wishes to participate actively in English civil proceedings must identify itself. That requirement applies even where the party becomes involved only in challenging the claimant’s costs. Serving points of dispute without providing a name and address for service does not amount to submission to the court’s jurisdiction.

Until identification occurs, the court need not take notice of the points of dispute. The claimant may proceed as if no points had been served and seek a default costs certificate. A party concerned about public disclosure may apply for anonymisation, but anonymity does not remove the requirement that the party’s identity be disclosed to the court.

The claimant obtained default judgment against persons unknown responsible for operating and publishing the bitcoin.org website. The substantive claim concerned alleged copyright infringement involving the Bitcoin White Paper. The defendant did not identify itself, but later served points of dispute in the detailed assessment of the claimant’s costs and instructed legal representatives.

The claimant applied under CPR 3.1(2)(m) for an order requiring identification and, failing identification, debarring the defendant from participating in the detailed assessment. The central issue was whether an unnamed defendant could challenge the claimant’s costs without identifying itself to the court and the claimant.

1. Application granted in substance. The defendant was required to identify itself by providing a verifiable name and address for service if it wished to challenge the claimant’s bill of costs. Until then, the court would not take notice of the points of dispute.
2. The rules, considered as a whole, expect a party to identify itself when first actively involved in proceedings. Although Part 47 did not expressly require a paying party to state its name and address when serving points of dispute, that omission did not displace the wider procedural requirement. The position differed from merely communicating with the opposing party before the court became involved.
3. Serving points of dispute without identification did not amount to submission to the jurisdiction. Without the defendant’s identity, the court could not effectively exercise procedural powers, including powers to impose sanctions or make enforceable costs orders. Participation within the court’s jurisdiction was insufficient.
4. The procedural consequence was that the points of dispute were to be treated as though they had not been served. The claimant could seek a default costs certificate if the defendant neither appealed nor identified itself. The listed detailed assessment hearing was vacated.
5. The authorities relied upon by counsel did not directly address the unusual situation of an unnamed party taking an active role in proceedings. The reasoning in Porter v Freudenberg [1915] 1 KB 857 and Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers [2012] UKSC 26 therefore did not govern the application.
6. A party concerned about publication of its identity could apply for anonymisation of its name and address. That was the extent of the available procedural accommodation and did not dispense with identification to the court.
7. Permission to appeal was granted. The judge indicated that any appeal should ordinarily be brought within 21 days, followed by a further 14-day period for identification if no appeal was brought.

The judgment was a first-instance decision in an application arising during detailed assessment proceedings. The substantive proceedings had resulted in default judgment before HHJ Hodge QC on 28 June 2021. Mann J had earlier permitted service out of the jurisdiction and alternative service, but declined at that stage to require identification. The present court granted permission to appeal its ruling.