Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright (POC Amendment)

Permission to amend pleadings is discretionary. The court must balance the injustice of refusing the amendment against prejudice to the opposing party and other court users, having regard to the overriding objective, timing, clarity, proportionality and trial consequences.

Fraud and forgery must be distinctly and clearly pleaded. An authenticity challenge does not, without more, amount to a properly pleaded allegation of deliberate forgery. Where dishonesty is to be inferred, the primary facts supporting the inference must be pleaded.

In a very late application threatening trial preparation, a heavy burden applies. The court may permit a carefully limited amendment with appropriate particulars and directions. Similar fact evidence requires consideration of both probative value and case-management prejudice.

COPA applied to amend its Particulars of Claim in proceedings concerning Dr Craig Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. The proposed amendments alleged that documents disclosed by Dr Wright had been altered or tampered with, that he was responsible for or aware of that conduct, and that his alleged plagiarism constituted similar fact evidence.

The application was opposed as late, insufficiently particularised, disproportionate and prejudicial to the January 2024 trial. The court considered the procedural history, disclosure and forensic evidence, the distinction between authenticity challenges and forgery allegations, and the admissibility and case-management treatment of similar fact evidence.

1. Forgery amendments. The court held that the application engaged the overriding objective and required a balance between COPA’s interest in advancing the essential feature of its case and the prejudice to Dr Wright, including disruption to trial preparation and the trial timetable.
2. Fraud and forgery must be distinctly alleged and distinctly proved. Allegations must be clear, unambiguous and supported by particulars of the primary facts relied upon to establish dishonesty. A general challenge to authenticity, including one made under CPR r.32.19 or the relevant case-management order, does not by itself constitute a plea of deliberate forgery.
3. The application was very late and the proposed allegations were inadequately particularised and potentially excessive. It would be disproportionate for the trial judge to determine about 400 separate forgery allegations. However, the forgery allegations represented the essential core of COPA’s case, and the existing authenticity challenges meant that a properly limited amendment would cause manageable additional prejudice.
4. Permission was therefore granted in a modified form for allegations concerning 50 additional documents. COPA was required to identify each document by ID number, specify the reasons relied upon with cross-references to the forensic report, and explain the basis for inferring Dr Wright’s responsibility or knowledge. The amended pleading was to be served within seven days, with Dr Wright’s response due by 1 December 2023.
5. Similar fact amendment. The court accepted a two-stage approach: whether the evidence was potentially probative and legally admissible, followed by whether it should nevertheless be excluded or controlled as a matter of case management. Although the plagiarism allegation was potentially admissible and caused little collateral burden, its probative value was extremely slight. Permission to add paragraph 35C was refused.

This was a first-instance case-management decision. The judgment describes earlier procedural hearings and directions, but no appeal from this decision is stated.