|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Wright v Person Or Persons Unknown Responsible for the Operation and Publication of the Website bitcoin.org  EWHC 2982 (SCCO) (23 November 2022)
Cite as:  EWHC 2982 (SCCO)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SENIOR COURTS COSTS OFFICE
Royal Courts of Justice
London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT
|- and -
|THE PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION AND PUBLICATION OF THE WEBSITE www.bitcoin.org (INCLUDING THE PERSON OR PERSONS USING THE PSEUDONYM "CØBRA")
Erica Bedford (instructed by Mackenzie Costs Limited) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 6 October 2022
Crown Copyright ©
Costs Judge Rowley:
"The claimant seeks an order:
1. Pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(m) that, unless the Defendant reveals their identity (which should be verifiable) to the Court and the Claimant within 7 days, the Defendant shall be debarred from participating in the Detailed Assessment and the Defendant's Points of Dispute shall be disregarded by the Court.
2. That the Defendant do pay the Claimant's costs of this application, such costs to be summarily assessed on the indemnity basis."
"I don't have any point to raise on the principle of whether the order itself should be made. I do, continue to have misgivings about the requirement to identify at this stage, because it involves an order for identification against somebody out of the jurisdiction and sort of presupposes that they are going to be subject to the jurisdiction. My present view is, and I say this to you so that you can knock it down if you think it needs to be knocked down, is it would not be appropriate to make the identification order at this stage, because it does presuppose the other to be subject to this jurisdiction or are subject to the jurisdiction and circumstances in which they may just not wish to be, and there are difficulties in actually enforcing such an order in any event, but to reserve the position of that or to say that actually in the event of them acknowledging service or challenging jurisdiction they will identify themselves and provide an address to service. I think they have got to provide an address for service in any event, but they will actually have to identify themselves if they are going to challenge. I think they would have to do that anyway in an acknowledgement to service but I can see the merits in making that clear in the order, but I have misgivings at this stage about all that's happening is permission to serve out and we don't know what's going to happen. We don't know whether they will challenge service out. We don't know whether they will participate at all. They may choose to do absolutely nothing. I have misgivings at this stage about making a without notice order that they identify themselves. Do you want to rise to that? I would be content with an order which made it clear that in any acknowledgement of service that they – or any challenge to the jurisdiction they must identify themselves. That I think almost goes without saying, but that would be obviously right, beyond that I have misgivings."
"If any person who is a Defendant shall file (i) an acknowledgement of service (ii) an admission or (iii) a defence, that person shall also forthwith serve on the Claimant (via his solicitors) a document setting out that person's full name."
Discussion and decision