Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2021] EWHC 3440 (Ch) (22 December 2021)

Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2021] EWHC 3440 (Ch) (22 December 2021)

The court held that paragraphs 63-65 of the particulars of claim, which relied on findings from the Kleiman Litigation, were inadmissible under the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn and would be removed. However, paragraphs 66, 66A, and 67, which alleged forgery and a propensity to produce false documents, were relevant to credibility and potentially probative, and should not be struck out or excluded at this stage. The application to exclude categories of evidence at trial was premature and should be determined by the trial judge. The claimant was permitted to re-amend its particulars of claim to plead allegations of forgery with sufficient particularity.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3440 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Crypto Open Patent Alliance; Defendant: Craig Steven Wright
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (intellectual Property) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Amendment, and Evidence Exclusion)
Outcome
Defendant's application to strike out paragraphs 66, 66A, and 67 refused; claimant's application to re-amend particulars of claim granted; application to exclude evidence at trial refused as premature.
Legal Topics
Copyright Authorship, Admissibility of Evidence, Similar Fact Evidence, Foreign Judgments, Pleading Amendments
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Evidence Copyright Authorship Admissibility of Evidence Similar Fact Evidence Foreign Judgments Pleading Amendments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crypto Open Patent Alliance

Claimant

Craig Steven Wright

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (intellectual Property) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Amendment, and Evidence Exclusion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 63-67 of the particulars of claim and related reply should be struck out as inadmissible or irrelevant under the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn and rules on similar fact evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be permitted to re-amend its particulars of claim to add allegations of forgery and related particulars.
  3. 3 Whether an order should be made excluding certain categories of evidence at trial, including findings from foreign litigation and similar fact evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that paragraphs 63-65 of the particulars of claim, which relied on findings from the Kleiman Litigation, were inadmissible under the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn and would be removed. However, paragraphs 66, 66A, and 67, which alleged forgery and a propensity to produce false documents, were relevant to credibility and potentially probative, and should not be struck out or excluded at this stage. The application to exclude categories of evidence at trial was premature and should be determined by the trial judge. The claimant was permitted to re-amend its particulars of claim to plead allegations of forgery with sufficient particularity.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to strike out paragraphs 66, 66A, and 67 refused; claimant's application to re-amend particulars of claim granted; application to exclude evidence at trial refused as premature.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 63-65 of the particulars of claim to be removed by amendment.
  • Claimant permitted to re-amend particulars of claim to add allegations of forgery and related particulars (including paragraphs 66, 66A, and 67).