The COPA v Wright Trilogy: English High Court’s Judicial Treatment of Vexatious Litigation in Web 3 and Blockchain Matters

This case analysis examines three sequential English High Court decisions in the litigation between the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) and Dr Craig Wright. The trilogy comprising the Relief Judgment^[1], the Contempt Judgment,^[2] and the General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) Judgment^[3] demonstrates the Court’s methodical progression from injunctive relief to contempt findings and ultimately to a civil restraint order. These judgments illustrate how English civil procedure addresses persistent and meritless litigation, particularly in the areas of digital assets, blockchain technology, and intellectual property. The Court focused on safeguarding judicial resources while protecting the interests of affected parties by balancing the need for access to justice with the necessity of deterring vexatious conduct.

Factual and Procedural Background

Dr Wright publicly claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the unknown creator of Bitcoin, and asserted he owned intellectual property rights over the Bitcoin White Paper, the Bitcoin Blockchain, and goodwill in the name Bitcoin.^[4] These assertions led to a series of lawsuits and threats against individuals and companies in the cryptocurrency sector. COPA, a non-profit alliance supporting open innovation, initiated proceedings to restrain Dr Wright from pursuing or threatening further litigation based on these claims.^[5] The main trial concluded with the Court finding that Dr Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto and that his claims were supported by forged documents and false statements.^[6] The Court described his actions as a campaign of dishonesty that targeted individuals and organisations with limited means and caused significant harm to both direct targets and the wider cryptocurrency industry. After the main judgment, Dr Wright abandoned several related claims, all of which were certified by the Court as totally without merit.

(i) The Relief Judgment: Assessment of Injunctive Relief

Following the main trial, the Court granted a suite of injunctions. These included anti-suit injunctions, anti-threat injunctions, publication orders, and costs orders. The anti-suit injunctions prevented Dr Wright from bringing or threatening further proceedings based on claims to authorship, copyright, database rights, or goodwill in Bitcoin. The orders were drafted to cover any claims based wholly or partly on the prohibited grounds, anticipating attempts to reframe claims to avoid the restrictions.

The Court’s approach was shaped by equitable principles, focusing on preventing injustice and abuse of process. The power to grant injunctions was exercised flexibly to address the specific tactics used by Dr Wright, rather than being constrained by traditional categories of relief. The Court emphasised that the overriding criterion for injunctive relief is the prevention of injustice and the protection of the legal process from abuse.

Legal Principles Applied

The Court drew on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers^[7], which confirmed that injunctive relief is a flexible tool guided by the need to prevent injustice and adapt to new forms of harm. This principle was important because it allowed the Court to tailor the injunctions to the specific tactics used by Dr Wright, rather than being limited by precedent. The Privy Council’s approach in Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd^[8] was also significant in reaffirming that the protection of legitimate interests, including the integrity of the legal process, provides a sufficient basis for the grant of injunctive relief.

The Court considered freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. While freedom of expression is a core right, the Court found it carries little weight when the statements in question are false and have been found to be so after a full trial. The reasoning was that there is no public interest in the continued dissemination of false information, especially when the purpose is to support meritless litigation, following the approach in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd.^[9]

Impact and Proportionality

The Court found that Dr Wright’s litigation campaign had caused real harm, not only to the direct targets of his claims but also to the wider cryptocurrency industry, by creating a chilling effect on innovation and participation. The evidence included detailed accounts from individuals who described years of distress, financial loss, and personal attacks resulting from Dr Wright’s actions. The Court accepted COPA’s submission that robust injunctive relief was necessary to prevent further abuse and to protect both the administration of justice and the interests of the wider community.

While the Court granted broad injunctions, it declined to grant certain additional relief sought by COPA, such as orders requiring Dr Wright to delete all prior statements asserting his claims. The Court found such orders would be disproportionate and unnecessary, given the public nature of the Court’s findings and the practical difficulties of enforcement. This measured approach reflects the Court’s focus on preventing future harm rather than punishing past conduct.

(ii) The Contempt Judgment: Enforcement and Clarity

Background and Legal Test

Despite the injunctions, Dr Wright issued new proceedings, again claiming rights in Bitcoin and targeting some of the same individuals and companies. COPA applied to commit Dr Wright for contempt of Court. The Court applied the standard test for contempt: knowledge of the order, a deliberate act, and knowledge of the facts constituting the breach. The clarity of the order’s terms was central to the Court’s reasoning, with reliance on established principles confirming that subjective misunderstanding of an order is irrelevant to liability, though it may be relevant to penalty. The formulation set out in FW Farnsworth Ltd v Lacy^[10] was applied, requiring proof to the criminal standard that the contemnor had notice of the order, did an act prohibited by the order, and knew the facts constituting the breach.

The Court was careful to ensure that the terms of the order were sufficiently clear and certain to make plain what was permitted and what was prohibited. The reasoning was that only clear and certain orders can be enforced, and this clarity is essential for the fair administration of justice.

Judicial Reasoning and Findings

Dr Wright argued that his new claim was a passing-off case and relied on promissory estoppel. The Court rejected these arguments, finding that a passing-off claim requires the claimant to assert ownership of goodwill and that promissory estoppel cannot be used as a basis for new claims. The Court found each ground of contempt proved beyond reasonable doubt. Dr Wright’s conduct showed a continuing disregard for Court orders and a determination to pursue his claims regardless of legal constraints. The Court imposed a suspended sentence of imprisonment and struck out the new claim as an abuse of process.

The contempt judgment demonstrates the Court’s insistence on the clarity and certainty of its orders, thereby rejecting any suggestion that the scope of the prohibitions was ambiguous or limited solely to explicit assertions of being Satoshi Nakamoto. The orders were drafted to capture any claims based wholly or partly on the prohibited grounds. The Court’s reasoning on promissory estoppel was clear, reiterating that the doctrine cannot be used to create new causes of action or establish standing for intellectual property claims, and that its invocation in this context was a legal error.

The Court’s approach to contempt was guided by the objective meaning of the order, not the subjective understanding of the party. This ensures that parties cannot avoid liability by claiming to misunderstand clear Court orders. The Court’s approach is consistent with the reasoning in Navigator Equities Ltd v Deripaska,^[11] where the Court of Appeal stressed that the objective meaning of the order is decisive, and subjective misunderstanding does not excuse breach.

(iii) General Civil Restraint Order (GRCO) Judgment: Civil Restraint Orders

COPA and SquareUp Europe Ltd applied for a General Civil Restraint Order against Dr Wright. The Court reviewed the three-tier regime for civil restraint orders: Limited CRO, Extended CRO, and General CRO. The gateway condition for an ECRO or GCRO is the persistent pursuit of at least three totally without merit claims or applications. The Court must also assess the risk of further abuse and determine whether the order is just and proportionate.

The Court’s reasoning was informed by the principle that a civil restraint order is intended to protect the Court’s process from abuse, not to shut out properly arguable claims. The Court also considered that persistence is assessed by looking at the nature and substance of the claims, not just their number. This approach ensures that the Court’s response is proportionate and tailored to the risk posed by the litigant.

The Court found that Dr Wright had issued far more than the threshold number of totally without merit claims, including the BTC Core, Coinbase, Kraken, and Tulip Trading claims, all certified as such. The new claim was found to be totally without merit in the contempt proceedings. Multiple defamation actions against individuals, many of which were abandoned, dismissed, or found to be without merit, were also considered. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was certified as totally without merit, and an application to the Supreme Court was also without merit.

Dr Wright’s litigation strategy involved targeting large numbers of individuals and companies, often with high value claims that would have been financially ruinous to their targets. The claims were frequently based on fabricated evidence and pursued in a manner designed to impose maximum distress and cost on opponents. The Court found a significant risk of further abusive litigation by Dr Wright, based on his conduct both before and after the main trial. Dr Wright had made public statements indicating his intention to continue litigating, including threats to bring patent infringement claims and actions against former lawyers and other perceived opponents.

Proportionality and Justification

The Court concluded that a General Civil Restraint Order was necessary to protect both potential litigants and the Court’s resources, and that lesser measures had been shown to be inadequate. The GCRO was made for three years, until 7 March 2028, with provision for extension if necessary. The Court also referred Dr Wright’s conduct to the Attorney General for consideration of a civil proceedings order, which would provide even broader protection against vexatious litigation.

The Court’s assessment of proportionality was grounded in the evidence of Dr Wright’s conduct before and after the main trial. The Court found that Dr Wright had shown no remorse and had continued to pursue meritless claims, often targeting the same individuals and companies across multiple jurisdictions. The risk of further abuse was not speculative but supported by Dr Wright’s public statements and litigation history.

Legal Reasoning and Application of Case Principles

The trilogy demonstrates the Court’s insistence on the clarity and certainty of its orders. The Court rejected any suggestion that the scope of the prohibitions was ambiguous or limited solely to explicit assertions of being Satoshi Nakamoto. The orders were drafted to capture any claims based wholly or partly on the prohibited grounds. The Court’s reasoning of promissory estoppel was clear, reiterating that the doctrine cannot be used to create new causes of action or establish standing for intellectual property claims, and that its invocation in this context was a legal error.

The escalation from injunctive relief to contempt and ultimately to a GCRO illustrates the Court’s willingness to use the full range of procedural tools to protect both private litigants and the administration of justice from systematic abuse. The judgments are notable for their attention to the policy objectives underpinning the civil restraint order regime. These objectives include the protection of Court resources, the prevention of relitigation of settled issues, and the deterrence of conduct that undermines confidence in the legal system.

The Court’s approach to civil restraint orders was informed by the need to prevent persistent abuse and by the principle that persistence is assessed by looking at the nature and substance of the claims, not just their number. The assessment of risk was grounded in the evidence of Dr Wright’s conduct before and after the main trial, and the proportionality of the GCRO was considered in light of the harm caused by Dr Wright’s actions, not just to the direct targets of his claims but to the wider innovation ecosystem.

Practical Implications

The trilogy provides clear guidance for practitioners on the application of anti-suit injunctions, the requirements for finding contempt, and the threshold for civil restraint orders in complex, high value disputes involving digital assets. The judgments emphasise the importance of clear and certain orders, careful documentation of litigation history, and the need to escalate remedies where earlier measures prove insufficient. Practitioners representing potential targets of vexatious litigation should be alert to the availability of both injunctive relief and civil restraint orders, and should document the impact of abusive claims on both individuals and the wider community.

The judgments also highlight the importance of coordinated action by industry groups to address systematic abuse. They illustrate the balance between ensuring protection against abuse and maintaining the fundamental right of access to the courts. Rather than barring Dr Wright from filing claims entirely, the GCRO requires that any new claim or application be reviewed by a judge at the outset. This safeguard allows genuinely arguable claims to be considered whilst preventing unnecessary use of resources.

Policy and Impact on the Blockchain, Crypto and Web 3 Sector

The Court’s reasoning on the impact of Dr Wright’s conduct extended beyond the immediate parties. The evidence demonstrated that his actions had caused substantial financial loss, distress, and disruption to innovation in the blockchain, crypto and Web 3 sector. The litigation had consumed an estimated ten million pounds in legal costs for opponents and occupied approximately one hundred days of Court time. The GCRO was seen as a proportionate response, providing a mechanism for the Court to filter any future claims or applications by Dr Wright and to prevent further abuse without denying him access to the Courts for properly arguable claims.

The Court was careful to balance the need for robust protection against abuse while ensuring that the fundamental right of access to the courts was upheld through procedural safeguards. The GCRO does not entirely prevent Dr Wright from bringing claims. Additionally, the Court deliberately avoided granting certain forms of relief that could have been disproportionate or unnecessary, such as broad orders to erase prior statements or restrict public discourse on the issues. These judgments reflect a balanced and thoughtful approach, prioritising the prevention of future harm over the penalisation of past actions.

Comparative and Policy Analysis

The trilogy demonstrates a consistent application of established legal principles governing injunctive relief, contempt of Court, and civil restraint orders. The Court’s approach to anti-suit injunctions reflects the flexible and adaptive nature of equitable remedies. The application of the contempt jurisdiction is grounded in the need for clarity of orders and the objective nature of liability. The GCRO judgment applies the principle that the Court must look at the substance of the litigant’s conduct, the risk of future abuse, and the effect on both the administration of justice and those targeted by the litigation.

The analysis highlights the adaptation of established principles to the context of digital assets and blockchain technology. The Court recognised the potential for legal processes to impact emerging technology sectors, with significant implications for innovation and participation. The judgments reflect an understanding of the need to protect not only direct litigants but also the broader ecosystem from the impacts of abusive litigation.

Conclusion

The COPA v Wright enforcement trilogy stands as a measured judicial response to systematic litigation abuse in the digital asset and intellectual property sphere. The Court’s reasoning is grounded in established legal principles and demonstrates how these are applied to address new forms of harm and abuse. The escalation from injunctive relief to contempt findings to a GCRO reflects both the limitations of individual remedies and the need for comprehensive protection for both litigants and the Courts. The trilogy provides clear guidance for practitioners and reinforces the English Courts’ commitment to the rule of law and the protection of innovation from legal harassment.

Authors

Brian Sanya Mondoh, Pupil Barrister (TBG) and Attorney at Law, Founder at Blockchain Lex Group and CryptoMondays Caribbean and Africa

Palesa Roza Gwele, Director of Communication and Head of Research at Blockchain Lex Group and CryptoMondays Caribbean and Africa

Disclaimer: This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice or judgment. Please consult with a qualified legal or financial advisor before making any decisions based on the information provided in this publication. The authors and publishers are not responsible for any actions taken as a result of reading this publication.

^[1]Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch).

^[2]Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 3315 (Ch).

^[3]Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2025] EWHC 1139 (Ch).

^[4] [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch)

^[5] [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch)

^[6] [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch)

^[7]Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2024] UKSC 47.

^[8]Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd [2021] UKPC 24, [2023] AC 389.

^[9]Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127.

^[10]FW Farnsworth Ltd & Anor v Lacy & Ors [2012] EWHC 2830 (Ch)

^[11]Navigator Equities Ltd v Deripaska [2012] EWCA Civ 151.