Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright & Ors

Applications concerning late evidence and trial management must be determined through the overriding objective and the requirement of a fair trial. An adjournment is required where proceeding would cause an unfair trial, but fairness is assessed through an iterative case-management exercise. The court should consider whether revised directions, evidential limits, focused allegations or other practical measures can secure fairness while preserving the trial listing.

Late documents may be admitted where their importance and the seriousness of allegations concerning them justify consideration at trial, even if the party’s disclosure conduct is criticised. The court should not conduct a mini-trial on disputed allegations of forgery or dishonesty on written evidence alone. Expert or trade-witness evidence should be regulated proportionately. Confidentiality arrangements should protect legitimate privilege and confidentiality interests without imposing unnecessary restrictions.

The judgment determined applications at a pre-trial review in two linked claims concerning whether Dr Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto. Dr Wright sought permission to rely on additional documents, including USB-drive material and LaTeX files, an adjournment of the Joint Trial, and further directions. The Developers sought further security for costs. Other applications concerned expert evidence, confidentiality and costs.

The principal questions were whether the additional documents should be admitted, whether a fair trial could take place within the existing trial period or required an adjournment, how disclosure and expert evidence should be managed, and whether further security was appropriate.

1. Additional documents. Permission was granted to rely on some or all of the Additional Documents, subject to case-management conditions. The importance attributed to the documents and the seriousness of the allegations that they were fabricated or forged meant that those issues should be determined at trial. The court declined to decide their authenticity or evidential value summarily and would not conduct a mini-trial on paper. COPA was permitted to rely on responsive witness statements, including brief opinions which did not justify imposing the full expert-evidence regime.
2. Adjournment and fairness. The governing consideration was whether a fair trial could take place. This was not a separate threshold question divorced from case management. The court had to assess the work required, available resources, the parties’ conduct, the consequences of delay, and possible limitations or revised directions. The parties had a duty to assist the court in active case management, especially where the application arose from default or delay.
3. A substantial adjournment was refused. The trial was instead moved to commence on 5 February 2024, with directions including staged reply evidence, updated reliance and challenged-document lists, and limits on COPA’s forgery allegations. The court was satisfied that those measures allowed a fair trial.
4. Confidentiality. The Overleaf LaTeX files were to be disclosed under the standard confidentiality terms in the Patents Court Guide. For the forensic image of the BDO drive, the expert could investigate metadata relevant to authenticity and dating, with privileged material referred to Dr Wright’s solicitors and other confidential material protected under the standard terms.
5. Security and costs. Further security for the Developers’ costs was ordered, increasing total security to £900,000. Dr Wright was ordered to pay COPA’s costs relating to ASD expert evidence incurred after 21 September 2023. Other costs orders were made, including costs in the case for Dr Wright’s application and £20,000 to the Developers from existing security.