The absence of a specific procedure rule requiring a paying party’s name and address in costs assessment proceedings does not permit the party to conceal their identity from the court, an appeal judge has ruled.
In Persons Unknown v Wright – the latest in a series of judgments concerning the self-proclaimed inventor of bitcoin – the Honourable Mr Justice Richard Smith dismissed an appeal brought by ‘Cøbra’, the pseudonymous operator of the bitcoin.org website, over the right to challenge a costs bill of £569,000. The High Court ruled last year that ‘Cøbra’ is not entitled to take part in proceedings over a copyright dispute even with legal representation.
‘Cøbra’ had intended to challenge a default judgment in a claim brought by computer scientist Dr Craig Wright for infringing copyright in the 2008 ‘Satoshi’ white paper which launched the bitcoin peer-to-peer digital cash system.
The latest appeal, at which Cøbra was represented by Erica Bedford, instructed by Mackenzie Costs Limited, relied partly on the point that no requirement for the paying party’s name to be stated appears in Part 47 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the related practice direction. Finding this omission ‘unremarkable’, Smith observed: ‘Although comprehensive, the CPR do not purport to be an exhaustive code as to the conduct of proceedings, nor do they purport to address every specific situation that might arise.’
Wright’s legal team, Shaman Kapoor, instructed by Travers Smith LLP, commented that the appeal was the first time that the English court has been asked on appeal to determine whether a party has the right to participate in assessment proceedings whilst maintaining their anonymity both to the court and to the opposing party.
Wright commented that allowing such anonymity would amount to an attack on the principle of open justice. ‘This is a core component of the rule of law and generally requires justice to be administered in public,’ he said. ‘Cøbra has shown flagrant disregard towards these important principles and now pays the price.’
Wright’s claim to be ‘Satoshi’ is expected to be tested in a High Court case scheduled for January and February next year.
