Wright v McCormack: QBD 1 Aug 2022

Claimants falsehood reduced award to nominal only.

The parties disputed the original authorship of bitcoin, the claimant saying he was ‘Satoshi’ that originator. The defendant published a series of tweets denying that connection.
Held: One particular publication was to be read as part of the whole series and was defamatory. The defendant knew a conversation was being recorded for republication and was therefore liable. However, the court concluded, for several reasons, that the claimant’s case as to the damage suffered was deliberately false. Even so, each of the Publications is likely to have caused serious harm to Dr Wright’s reputation. In this case, although the Publications were flippant in tone, they came from a well-known podcaster and acknowledged expert in cryptocurrency. They were unequivocal in their meaning. The defendant was liable, but in view of the claimant’s conduct, only nominal damages were awarded.


Mr Justice Chamberlain


[2022] EWHC 2068 (QB)


Bailii, Judiciary


England and Wales


CitedLachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Another SC 12-Jun-2019
Need to Show Damage Increased by 2013 Act
The claimant alleged defamation by three publishers. The articles were held to have defamatory meaning, but the papers argued that the defamations did not reach the threshold of seriousness in section 1(1) of the 2013 Act.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedArmory v Delamirie KBD 1722
A jeweller to whom a chimney sweep had taken a jewel he had found, took the jewel out of the socket and refused to return it. The chimney sweep sued him in trover. On the measure of damages, the court ruled ‘unless the defendant did produce the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Damages

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.679851