Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright (WFO Application)

A worldwide freezing order may support enforcement of a prospective or not-yet-quantified costs order where the applicant has a strong case for substantive relief enforceable through the court’s process. The court must be satisfied that there is a good arguable case, a real risk of dissipation, and that relief is just in all the circumstances.

Delay is relevant but is not determinative of the risk of dissipation or the court’s discretion. The court may grant relief before final costs orders are determined where the respondent has a fair opportunity to address those costs at a later stage. Adequate protection must be provided through a cross-undertaking in damages and, where appropriate, fortification.

The court had recently determined the Identity Issue in the COPA Claim and the related BTC Core Claim, concluding that Dr Craig Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto and had not created Bitcoin or its early materials. The written trial judgment and final costs orders had not yet been handed down.

After Dr Wright transferred shares in a company to an overseas company, COPA applied urgently for a worldwide freezing order to protect its anticipated costs recovery. COPA relied on the strength of its position on the Identity Issue, the alleged risk of dissipation, and the likely scale of its costs. The central issues were whether the court had jurisdiction to grant freezing relief in support of a prospective costs order, whether there was a real risk of dissipation, and whether it was just to grant the order before final costs submissions.

1. Application granted. A worldwide freezing order in the sum of £6m was granted against Dr Wright. Final costs orders were not determined at this hearing because Dr Wright had not been given sufficient time to prepare his response.
2. The court applied the basic requirements for freezing relief: a good arguable case on the merits, a real risk that assets would be dissipated before enforcement, and that it was just in all the circumstances to grant the injunction. The court held that the jurisdictional basis and discretion were established in the unusual circumstances of the case.
3. The court treated Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd and Re G as confirming that the relevant interest is the ability to enforce a judgment or order for payment through the court’s process. A freezing order need not depend on an existing cause of action or a finally quantified costs order. COPA had an extremely strong case for recovery of substantial costs because it had succeeded on the Identity Issue.
4. There was a real risk of dissipation. The court relied cumulatively on Dr Wright’s dishonesty, his lack of candour about litigation funding, the transfer of an onshore shareholding offshore, contempt and disclosure history, statements that he was judgment-proof, defaults in paying money judgments, previous asset transfers, and complex offshore asset structures. The evidence was described as unusually powerful.
5. Delay did not displace the risk. Its significance depends on the facts and it may remain relevant to the overall discretion, but it did not outweigh the other evidence here. The court also rejected the submission that asset disclosure should await the return date and required early disclosure.
6. COPA gave a standard cross-undertaking in damages and offered a £1.9m bank guarantee. The court considered that fortification sufficient. The freezing order was therefore continued worldwide, with directions for asset disclosure and for written submissions on the outstanding costs applications.