A Justice of the High Court of England and Wales has thrown out Craig Wright’s libel case against Roger Ver, taking a bite out of Craig Wright’s ego along the way. Justice Matthew Nicklin stated in his ruling that the UK isn’t the right jurisdiction for the case to be heard in due to most of the evidence being US-based in origin, but it is his comments about Wright that really catch the eye.
Wright’s case against Ver was the result of Wright’s decision to sue anyone who called him a fraud, with Ver being the first of three potential related cases, and Wright might want to read the judgment, or our below summary, carefully before he considers proceeding with the other two.
Justice Nicklin’s Key Comments
Regarding Wright’s decision to bring the case in a UK court rather than an American court:
The evidence clearly demonstrates that the most substantial publication of the statements complained of is in the US. The extent of publication in England and Wales does not demonstrate that this jurisdiction is the most appropriate place to bring the action.
Regarding Wright’s complaints that he suffered reputational damage “within the United Kingdom’s community of business people” and that being called a fraud has prevented his company, nChain, from being able to hire top talent:
…the Claimant has not provided the Court with any evidence…as to the global reputation he enjoys and, more particularly, the extent to which it has been damaged by the Defendant’s publications.
Regarding Wright’s claims that Ver’s ‘fraud’ YouTube and Twitter posts directly caused reputational damage in the UK:
…the Claimant’s evidence as to the extent of harm that the publications have caused (or are likely to cause) is weak, lacks detail and…(puts) forward evidence at a level of generality that is almost entirely speculative. There is no objective evidence of any harm to reputation in England and Wales. The Claimant has failed completely to address whether and to what extent the publications complained of have harmed his reputation in other jurisdictions.
Regarding the necessity for Wright to show that he has a uniquely strong British reputation rather than the UK making up part of a global reputation:
He has brought that (a global reputation) with him to the UK. He is doing nothing to shed that global reputation; on the contrary, he promotes it on his website, and he continues to occupy a space on the global Bitcoin stage, for example through his attendance at conferences and his publications. (This)…does not demonstrate that his profile is limited to England and Wales; plainly it is not.
Wright Needs to Listen for Once
Considering this was not a verdict against Wright but was instead an explanation of why the action has been dismissed, the judge spends some time eviscerating the claims made by Wright, with no negativity reserved for Ver whatsoever – his name is barely mentioned. As we have seen with the ongoing case against David Kleiman’s estate, Wright seems to have an innate belief that he can hoodwink judges in the same way that he tried to hoodwink the media into thinking he was Satoshi Nakamoto in his bizarre world tour in 2016.
The fact that Wright’s boasts of international repute worked against him is poetic justice at its finest, and if Justice Nicklin’s reasoning doesn’t set at least the faintest alarm bells ringing in Wright’s ears, then he is in for a couple of rude awakenings in his plethora of upcoming lawsuits.