The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has rejected Craig Wright’s application for permission to appeal in his case against Bitcoin podcaster Peter McCormack.
In July, a panel of judges ruled that Wright was only entitled to £1 in compensation for his defamation claim against McCormack, regarding Wright’s claim to be the inventor of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto.
The Supreme Court’s decision confirms the initial judgment, putting an end to Wright’s attempts to appeal the nominal £1 compensation.
Implications and Developments of the Wright vs. McCormack Case
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recently dismissed Craig Wright’s request to appeal the decision of a lower court in his defamation lawsuit against Peter McCormack. In July, Craig Wright was deemed entitled to only symbolic compensation of £1, a ruling interpreted as a setback to his claims of being the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto.
Rupert Cowper-Coles, a partner at law firm RPC representing McCormack, confirmed the decision, noting that Wright had attempted twice, unsuccessfully, to appeal the judgment. Wright has faced a series of recent legal defeats, including in another ongoing litigation against several crypto companies and Bitcoin developers.
Ongoing Contestation and Reactions
In a related development, a group has rejected a settlement offer in another case where Wright claims copyright on the Bitcoin whitepaper, the blockchain database, and file format. The Open Crypto Patent Alliance (COPA) has categorically rejected the offer, describing the terms as “loopholes” that could potentially allow Wright to sue the involved parties again.
COPA also claims that Craig Wright has forged documents, reportedly multiple times, even as his own expert would have pointed it out:
Take a look at COPA’s dissection of the new documents that, according to Wright, would entitle him to a victory – and which, according to Wright’s own expert, are forgeries.
This latest rejection by the Supreme Court marks an important milestone in Wright’s series of legal battles and further undermines his credibility in claiming Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity.