Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright

CPR Part 18 is a broad case-management power. It may require information strictly necessary for a party to understand and prepare for the case it must meet at trial. The power is not confined by the technical rules formerly governing interrogatories, although it cannot circumvent the requirements for specific disclosure.

Information may be ordered even where it is also evidence or might otherwise be elicited in cross-examination, provided it concerns an issue and is necessary and proportionate. Expert evidence about a vulnerable witness may be admitted in reasonably exceptional cases to explain how a disability affects presentation, but not to decide credibility. The court may exclude admissible hearsay expert evidence where it is duplicative and would cause disproportionate cost.

The judgment concerned five applications arising from case management of the forthcoming trial of the Identity Issue: whether Dr Craig Wright was the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.

The applications concerned requests for further information, chain-of-custody information, expert evidence about autism spectrum disorder, a request concerning a technical primer, and the exclusion of hearsay expert reports previously prepared in other proceedings.

The court determined the applicable scope of CPR Part 18, whether expert evidence concerning vulnerability should be admitted, and whether additional hearsay expert evidence should be excluded as duplicative and disproportionate.

1. Requests for further information. CPR Part 18 confers a broad case-management power. A request must be concise and strictly confined to information reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable the requesting party to prepare its case or understand the case it must meet. The power may be used at any stage of an action and is not confined by the former technical rules governing interrogatories. Overlap with disclosure powers is not, by itself, a bar, although Part 18 cannot be used to circumvent the requirements for specific disclosure.

2. Information does not become impermissible merely because it is evidence or might eventually be elicited in cross-examination. Where it concerns a matter in issue and is necessary for trial preparation, the court may order it to be provided in advance. Applying that approach, orders were made concerning key documents, drafts of the White Paper, software and source code, demonstrations involving private keys, and the Kleiman email. Other requests were refused as unnecessary, disproportionate, speculative, excessive, or directed principally to credibility.

3. Vulnerability and expert evidence. Expert evidence may explain how a recognised mental disorder or disability affects a witness’s presentation and may assist the fact-finder to assess the evidence. It must not amount to expert evidence that the witness is truthful or reliable. Such evidence is appropriate only in reasonably exceptional cases and requires a proper medical basis. Permission was granted for evidence concerning autism spectrum disorder, with directions for responsive evidence, expert discussions and disclosure of earlier expert opinions. Decisions on diagnosis and trial adjustments were left for the pre-trial review.

4. Hearsay expert evidence. Pre-existing expert reports may be admissible by hearsay notice without permission under CPR Part 35. The court retains a case-management discretion under CPR r.32.1 to exclude admissible evidence. Seven further reports were excluded because they addressed the same documents as the instructed expert’s report, were wholly duplicative, would impose disproportionate cost, and would create practical difficulties without materially assisting the trial judge.

5. The application concerning the technical primer was dismissed. The requested information did not relate to a matter in issue and was not necessary or proportionate. Costs were ordered in the case, save that the costs of the chain-of-custody application were payable by Dr Wright. Revised directions and a pre-trial review were ordered.

First-instance case-management judgment. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.