Craig Wright’s legal campaign continues to experience turbulence, with a UK court dealing a devastating blow to the self-declared Bitcoin creator's quest to use the strong arm of the law to unsully his less-than-stellar-reputation. The self-proclaimed “Satoshi Nakamoto” launched a libel lawsuit against Roger Ver after…
Craig Wright’s legal campaign continues to experience turbulence, with a UK court dealing a devastating blow to the self-declared Bitcoin creator’s quest to use the strong arm of the law to unsully his less-than-stellar-reputation.
The self-proclaimed “Satoshi Nakamoto” launched a libel lawsuit against Roger Ver after Ver taunted him by calling him a “fraud” – a charge he repeated after being slapped with the 100,000-pound suit.
Roger Ver’s lawyers challenged Britain’s right to oversee the case.
Britain’s high court ruled today that Wright’s case against Roger Ver can’t take place there because the court is not satisfied that it is the most appropriate venue.
“The threshold is clear: the Court must be satisfied that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to bring a libel claim where there has been multi-jurisdiction publication. It is no longer sufficient to demonstrate that England and Wales is an appropriate jurisdiction. A claimant could fail to surmount the evidential hurdle in s.9(2) even if the Court is unable to identify, from the other candidate jurisdictions, an alternative that is the most appropriate.”
Judge Matthew Nicklin points out that English law doesn’t give him much direction on how to determine the “appropriateness” of his venue for Wright’s libel suit.
Nevertheless, Nicklin concludes that a significant factor in a libel or defamation suit and where it takes place should be the location of the accused publications or persons. Roger Ver doesn’t reside in England, and YouTube is headquartered in the United States.
Whether or not the alleged defamation took place in England, the judge also has to assess whether sufficient damage was done to Wright’s reputation in his jurisdiction.
Saying that it’s “impossible to lay down hard rules,” Nicklin assures us that the matter of jurisdiction will be different in every case.
Because Craig Wright failed to supply the court with sufficient evidence of damage within England and Wales, Nicklin has decided not to let the case move forward.
“In consequence, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the action. The action will be struck out. ”
Meanwhile, Wright’s other cases are also deteriorating. In a multibillion-dollar suit against him, brought by the estate of Dave Kleiman, Wright has continually frustrated a Florida judge by failing to comply with the rules of the court or meet certain deadlines.
Last modified: January 10, 2020 3:09 PM UTC