Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr. Craig Steven Wright

Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr. Craig Steven Wright

Dr Wright failed to provide credible evidence justifying remote attendance at the contempt hearing. The alleged threats were historic, unsubstantiated, and did not demonstrate a real risk to safety. Expert evidence did not support that his ASD required remote participation; previous in-person attendance with agreed adjustments was effective. Allegations of apparent bias were unfounded and based on minimal, non-substantive contact between the judge and a third party. The contempt hearing must proceed in person, with Dr Wright subject to cross-examination on limited topics relevant to intent and compliance.

Parties
Claimant: Crypto Open Patent Alliance; Defendant: Dr. Craig Steven Wright; Claimant: Dr. Craig Steven Wright; Defendant: BTC Core (a partnership); Defendant: Square Up Europe Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Contempt Application (intellectual Property/business) / Case Management Conference (cmc) Prior to Substantive Contempt Hearing
Outcome
Application for remote attendance refused; directions for in-person hearing and cross-examination granted; allegations of bias rejected.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Remote Attendance, Vulnerable Witnesses, Bias, Cross Examination, Injunctions
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Business Law Contempt of Court Remote Attendance Vulnerable Witnesses Bias Cross Examination +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crypto Open Patent Alliance

Claimant

Dr. Craig Steven Wright

Defendant

Dr. Craig Steven Wright

Claimant

BTC Core (a partnership)

Defendant

Square Up Europe Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contempt Application (intellectual Property/business) / Case Management Conference (cmc) Prior to Substantive Contempt Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Wright should be permitted to attend the contempt hearing remotely
  2. 2 Whether Dr Wright's ASD or alleged threats justify remote attendance
  3. 3 Whether there is apparent bias by the judge

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Wright failed to provide credible evidence justifying remote attendance at the contempt hearing. The alleged threats were historic, unsubstantiated, and did not demonstrate a real risk to safety. Expert evidence did not support that his ASD required remote participation; previous in-person attendance with agreed adjustments was effective. Allegations of apparent bias were unfounded and based on minimal, non-substantive contact between the judge and a third party. The contempt hearing must proceed in person, with Dr Wright subject to cross-examination on limited topics relevant to intent and compliance.

Court Disposition

Application for remote attendance refused; directions for in-person hearing and cross-examination granted; allegations of bias rejected.

Orders

  • Contempt hearing to proceed fully in person; Dr Wright must attend in person.
  • Dr Wright to give oral evidence in person, limited to intent/recklessness in breaching the Order and responsibility for removing the legal notice.