Dr Craig Wright in the courts: claims, controversies, civil restraints and costs

Dr Craig Wright: The litigant claiming to be Bitcoin’s creator

Australian Computer Scientist, Dr Craig Wright, is no stranger to the English courts. He has been long embroiled in numerous cases relating to his claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto (the pseudonym attributed to the person or groups of people credited with the creation of Bitcoin). However, Dr Wright’s English litigation saga may, for now, have run its course; this week, the High Court has granted a rare and draconian form of court order that prevents Dr Wright from issuing any claim or making any application without first obtaining the permission of the court.[1] 

Wright’s wrongs: a brief history

Dr Wright originally proclaimed himself as the inventor of Bitcoin after press in the technology sector began to run stories that named him as Nakomoto in December 2015. His English court debut was in May 2019, having filed a libel claim against an investor who had alleged his claim to be Satoshi was fraudulent in a tweet[2]. This action failed in the High Court, with the decision upheld by the Court of Appeal the following May, based on a challenge to the English court’s jurisdiction by the defendant.

In April 2021, the not-for-profit cryptocurrency group Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) filed a claim challenging Dr Wright’s assertions that he was Nakamoto (the Identity Trial).

In 2022, Dr Wright brought a defamation claim against podcaster Peter McCormack, in which Dr Wright was awarded a nominal £1 in damages. In that case, Dr Wright satisfied the court that Mr McCormack’s allegation he had fraudulently claimed to be Nakamoto had caused inherent serious harm to his reputation. However, the Judge ruled that Dr Wright was “not a witness of truth”, finding that Dr Wright had “advanced a deliberately false case” as to the evidence of the harm he had suffered[3] (NB: In 2024, Peter McCormack successfully applied for a Worldwide Freezing Order against Dr Wright to protect sums which he claimed to be entitled to, including the costs he had incurred in defending the proceedings[4]).

Perhaps emboldened by this pyrrhic victory, Dr Wright embarked on a litigation spree, including a claim concerning whether the Bitcoin Association and developers owed both fiduciary and tortious duties to Tulip Trading Limited, Dr Wright’s company. He also brought actions against an array of high-profile Bitcoin companies including Coinbase and Kraken, claiming that they had infringed his rights across the Bitcoin blockchain and that they had infringed his copyright of the Bitcoin File Format and the Bitcoin whitepaper. The value of each of these claims were expressed “as likely to be in the hundreds of billions of pounds”. Dr Wright also brought a claim against BTC Core copyright infringement in the Bitcoin File Format, claiming damages for an account of profits for the infringement. This case reached the court of appeal but fell flat when the court refused permission for Dr Wright to serve the papers on BTC Core outside of the jurisdiction.

All the cases brought by Dr Wright rested on his assertion that he was Nakamoto. However, there was widespread scepticism in the crypto world as to the truth of this claim.[5]

COPA’s claim against Dr Wright went to trial in 2024. They sought negative declarations to bring an end to Dr Wright’s litigation and to any further claims based on the assertion that he was Nakamoto. In this case, the Judge on 24 May 2024 dramatically and emphatically ruled on the final day of the trial that Dr Wright was not Nakamoto. In the judgment which followed later the judge explained his decision in meticulous detail and found that Dr Wright had “lied to the court repeatedly and extensively”[6].

Dr Wright subsequently sought permission to appeal the judgment arising from the Identity Trial. This application was rejected with the court finding that “Dr Wright’s grounds of appeal, skeleton argument and summary of skeleton argument themselves contain multiple falsehoods, including reliance upon fictitious authorities such as “Anderson v the Queen [2013] UKPC 2” which appear to be AI-generated hallucinations.”[7]. The submissions were “verbose and repetitious, bearing signs of creation by ChatGPT” and contained a number of falsehoods, including that Dr Wright’s autism condition had not been considered by the High Court and that the expert witnesses instructed by COPA had been biased due to financial interests[8].

Following the Identity Trial, COPA had incurred costs in excess of £6.7m and obtained a worldwide freezing order against Dr Wright. The judge found that there was a real risk of Dr Wright dissipating his assets and that COPA had a “very powerful claim to be awarded a very substantial sum in costs” [9] (COPA were subsequently awarded costs on the indemnity basis, plus interest[10]).

COPA also sought wide ranging anti-suit and anti-threat injunctions against Dr Wright. An anti-suit injunction is a type of court order that requires a party not to commence proceedings or to take no further steps in proceedings already underway. The injunction was put in place in July 2024, due to the perceived risk of Dr Wright trying to relitigate the matter following the Identity Trial.

Judicial patience runs out

In December 2024, Dr Wright was sentenced to a 12-month suspended prison sentence for contempt of court, after issuing a new claim on 10 October 2024, against BTC Core and SquareUp, seeking damages of over £900bn based on asserted intellectual property rights relating to the Bitcoin system[11]. This claim was made in spite of anti-suit injunctions being in place against him following the Identity Trial, with the judge describing his conduct as “a flagrant breach” of the court order and finding him in contempt of court.

Dr Wright continued to make threats of litigation on social media, including a number of posts made on 8 January 2025 in which he referenced his "mission" and declared that he would "keep coming back".

The latest twist in Dr Wright’s litigation spree came in a judgment handed down on 12 May 2025[12]. Following a successful application by COPA and SquareUp, a General Civil Restraint Order has been made preventing Dr Wright from reapplying to the High Court and all County Courts for a period of three years.

Civil Restraint Orders can be made against a party who has persistently issued claims or made applications that are totally without merit. They are a draconian measure made only when the circumstances clearly justify such an order. The evidential bar is high, and a clear finding must be made of vexatiousness or abuse, obsessive persistence, or the refusal to accept defeat (rather than just merely pursuing weak or invalid applications tenaciously)[13].

In this case, court granted a General Civil Restraint Order to protect potential future defendants against Dr Wright’s various spurious claims, to save these targets from having to incur the costs of striking Dr Wright’s claims out, to save court resources and allow the court to prevent a wider range of baseless claims than the anti-suit and anti-threat injunctions previously issued could have prevented. The scathing judgment criticised Dr Wright’s lack of remorse and his “continuing and brazen abuse of the court’s process”, and noted that Dr Wright uses “litigation as a means to terrorise perceived opponents”.

At COPA’s invitation, the court also referred the matter to the Attorney General in March 2025, to consider making a Civil Proceedings Order, an even wider sanction offering broader protections than a Civil Restraint Order. The outcome is awaited.

A costly misstep

Dr Wright is not just prevented from bringing future claims or applications, he also faces a hefty bill to mark the end of this spree. On top of all the other substantial costs he faces, in March 2025, the Court of Appeal ordered Dr Wright to pay a total of £225,000 to his opponents for their costs in opposing his application to appeal. Whilst the £225,000 is a drop in the ocean compared to the costs incurred by COPA during the Identity Trial and beyond, the ruling is uncommon. Parties filing submissions in response to applications for permission cannot normally expect to recover their costs. In this case, however, Dr Wright was ordered to pay indemnity costs (i.e. higher than standard costs), a clear reflection of judicial displeasure at Dr Wright’s conduct in “improperly [using] AI to prepare his submissions, which risked significantly misleading the court”. Dr Wright has also been ordered to pay costs on the indemnity basis totalling £100,000 in respect of COPA and SquareUp’s application for a Civil Restraint Order.[14]

What is next for Dr Wright? Civil restraints and beyond

Whilst Dr Wright did not attend the recent hearings or contest the applications, his track record suggests it is unlikely this will be the last time we see him in the courts. The issuing of a General Civil Restraint Order will, however, make it far harder for him to continue his campaign in this jurisdiction. The saga demonstrates that the English courts will deal firmly with those who bring vexatious or unfounded claims and will not tolerate abuse of process.