The next time the profession feels like handing out awards to individuals who have done the legal sector a bit of good, perhaps it will consider the contribution of computer scientist Dr Craig Wright (pictured). The litigious (and recipient of litigation) Wright, who claims to be the true inventor of the bitcoin digital currency, has featured in at least 17 High Court judgments over the past couple of years, each generating work for legal specialists in everything from cryptography to defamation – not to mention civil, and even criminal, procedure.

Dr Craig Wright

Source: Shutterstock

This week a long-suffering Mr Justice Mellor – possibly the nearest the bench has to a true computer geek – painstakingly listed five current cases involving Wright and his companies. He was ruling on a set of applications in what the cryptocurrency world sees as the ‘main event’. This is a hearing listed for January and February next year to determine ‘the identity issue’ – in brief whether Wright’s claim to be ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’, bitcoin’s inventor, is true.

Wright’s claim, it is fair to say, is controversial. He is up against the US-based Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance and a troupe of bitcoin developers and companies. The court this week was ruling on their application for costs security and a time extension. Some fascinating numbers were involved. Wright’s opponents were seeking £1.5m in security, or 75% of their expected costs; £418,000 of which have already been incurred. Wright’s legal team objected partly on the grounds of ‘excessive’ hourly rates: City firm Macfarlanes, it seems, is billing up to £1,025 an hour for a grade A.

Few will quibble at a top-flight specialist charging a 100% mark-up on the guideline hourly rate – but the £380 an hour apparently charged for trainees might raise eyebrows.

In his ruling, Mellor found that it was a little premature to demand security for top-flight representation for all parties in the trial itself. However he awarded £250,000 security against costs to date, £300,000 to cover the period up to the pre-trial review in December and £100,000 for the trial itself. So overall Wright must lodge £650,000 with the court.

Oh, and the costs of this preliminary to a preliminary hearing? Another £82,476. Wright was ordered to cough up £75,000 within 14 days – in boring old fiat currency, we presume.

Topics