Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 2068 (QB) (01 August 2022)

The publications (tweets and video) by Mr McCormack bore meanings that Dr Wright fraudulently claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, which are defamatory at common law. However, Dr Wright failed to prove that the publications caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation in England and Wales as required by s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013. Liability for republication of the YouTube video was established as a natural consequence of participation.

Citation: [2022] EWHC 2068
Parties: Claimant: Craig Steven Wright; Defendant: Peter McCormack
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 01 August 2022
Procedural Posture: Libel / Judgment After Trial on Meaning, Liability, and Serious Harm
Outcome: Claim dismissed for failure to prove serious harm.
Legal Topics: Libel, Serious Harm, Publication, Reputation, Social Media, Jurisdiction

Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm Publication Reputation Social Media Jurisdiction

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

Parties

Craig Steven Wright

Claimant

Peter McCormack

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Judgment After Trial on Meaning, Liability, and Serious Harm

Legal Issues

1 Meaning of Publication 16
2 Liability for republication of Publication 16
3 Serious harm to reputation under s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed for failure to prove serious harm.

Orders

No damages awarded.
No injunction granted.