Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 3343 (KB) (21 December 2022)

Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 3343 (KB) (21 December 2022)

Dr Wright's conduct in advancing a deliberately false case on serious harm and giving false evidence disentitles him to injunctive relief and permission to appeal the nominal damages award. His posts on Slack after receiving the embargoed draft judgment warrant contempt proceedings. Previous costs orders in his favour are not set aside as the dishonesty did not affect those orders. All other costs are to be paid by Dr Wright on the indemnity basis.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3343 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Craig Wright; Defendant: Peter McCormack
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Post Trial Judgment on Ancillary Matters Including Embargo Breach, Injunctive Relief, Permission to Appeal, and Costs
Outcome
Summons issued for Dr Wright to attend directions hearing for contempt proceedings; no injunctive relief or undertakings granted; permission to appeal refused; Dr Wright to pay all of Mr McCormack's costs except those covered by previous orders, which stand.
Legal Topics
Libel, Nominal Damages, Embargo Breach, Injunctive Relief, Permission to Appeal, Costs Orders, Contempt Proceedings
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Libel Nominal Damages Embargo Breach Injunctive Relief +3 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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Wright

Claimant

Peter McCormack

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Post Trial Judgment on Ancillary Matters Including Embargo Breach, Injunctive Relief, Permission to Appeal, and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Wright breached the embargo on the draft judgment and whether contempt proceedings should be initiated
  2. 2 Whether injunctive relief or undertakings should be granted to restrain Mr McCormack from repeating defamatory statements
  3. 3 Whether Dr Wright should have permission to appeal the award of only nominal damages

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Wright's conduct in advancing a deliberately false case on serious harm and giving false evidence disentitles him to injunctive relief and permission to appeal the nominal damages award. His posts on Slack after receiving the embargoed draft judgment warrant contempt proceedings. Previous costs orders in his favour are not set aside as the dishonesty did not affect those orders. All other costs are to be paid by Dr Wright on the indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Summons issued for Dr Wright to attend directions hearing for contempt proceedings; no injunctive relief or undertakings granted; permission to appeal refused; Dr Wright to pay all of Mr McCormack's costs except those covered by previous orders, which stand.

Orders

  • Summons for Dr Wright to attend directions hearing for contempt proceedings regarding embargo breach
  • No injunctive relief or undertakings granted against Mr McCormack