Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright

A general civil restraint order is justified where a litigant has persistently issued claims or applications which are totally without merit, there is an objectively significant risk of further abusive litigation, and the order is just and proportionate. Persistence depends on the overall conduct, including the nature and substance of the litigation, not merely the number of meritless claims. A general order is appropriate where an extended order would not adequately address a scattergun pattern of litigation across different grievances. The order protects court resources and other litigants while preserving access to arguable claims through a permission mechanism.

COPA and SquareUp applied for civil restraint orders against Dr Wright. The applications followed findings that he had brought or supported numerous claims and applications certified, or found, to be totally without merit, breached anti-suit injunctions, issued a further claim, and continued to pursue abusive litigation. Dr Wright was properly served but chose not to attend the hearing.

The court considered whether the threshold for an extended or general civil restraint order was met, whether there was a continuing risk of further abusive proceedings, and which order was proportionate. The Applicants also sought referral to the Attorney General for consideration of a civil proceedings order under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

1. Threshold and applicable test. The court accepted the established three-stage approach: whether the litigant has persistently brought claims or applications which are totally without merit; whether an objective assessment demonstrates a risk of further abusive claims or applications unless restrained; and what order is just and proportionate to address that risk. An extended or general order requires at least three totally without merit claims or applications. There is no fixed time limit for considering earlier conduct.
2. Meaning of persistence. Persistence is assessed by the litigant’s overall conduct. The court considers the number, nature and substance of the claims or applications, including repeated attempts to relitigate issues and the resulting threat level. Conduct undertaken while acting as a defendant may be relevant once the minimum threshold is met. Claims brought through an entity may also count where the person was the real party standing behind the claimant.
3. Choice between orders. A general order is reserved for circumstances in which an extended order would be insufficient or inappropriate. It may be required where the litigant adopts a scattergun approach involving different grievances. The overriding question is whether a general order is necessary to protect other litigants and the finite resources of the court, having regard to its impact on the restrained person.
4. Application. Dr Wright had issued substantially more than three totally without merit claims or applications. His conduct showed persistent abusive litigation, repeated attempts to revive hopeless issues, disregard of court orders and process, and a significant continuing risk of further claims. The harm included substantial cost and distress to opponents, disruption to innovation, and extensive consumption of court resources.
5. An extended order would not provide adequate protection because the potential future claims were not confined to one subject or procedural chain. A general civil restraint order for three years was therefore necessary, just and proportionate. It did not deny access to justice, since properly arguable claims could proceed with the court’s permission.
6. The court referred Dr Wright’s conduct to the Attorney General for consideration of a civil proceedings order under section 42(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Dr Wright was ordered to pay the Applicants’ costs on the indemnity basis, summarily assessed at £100,000.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier decisions in the same litigation but no appeal from the present applications.