Dr Craig Wright has long claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin. He has brought lawsuits all over the world attempting to prove this—and, more critically, establish control of related intellectual property (IP). In Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright, a crypto-industry body, COPA, brought a claim in England (where Dr Wright is resident) seeking to prevent him from continuing to do so. This claim was joined with an action for passing off brought by Dr Wright against COPA and its members, as well as others involved in Bitcoin space, described as the “Developers”. At the close of the five-week trial, Mellor J held (ex tempore) that Dr Wright was not Nakamoto, and later made various declarations to that effect.1 What injunctive relief COPA was entitled to was left over to a further hearing.

Following that hearing, Mellor J granted two injunctions.2 The first was an “anti-suit” injunction precluding Dr Wright or his companies from commencing litigation or arbitration asserting that he was Nakamoto, or that he owned IP or goodwill in Bitcoin.3 The second precluded the threatening of such proceedings.4 Mellor J refused three further injunctions prohibiting extra-judicial assertions by Dr Wright of rights in relation to Bitcoin, and requiring that he delete existing statements to that effect.5

The decision is a novel extension of the anti-suit injunction, but the basis on which the court purported to grant (and refuse) the injunctions demonstrates how unmoored from principle the jurisdiction has become.

Mellor J began with the “modern approach to injunctive relief”.6 This was said to derive from the judgments in Wolverhampton CC v London Gypsies and Travellers 7 and Convoy Collateral v Broad Idea.8 He noted that the power to grant injunctions is “unlimited” and that the “width and flexibility” of the power is not to be limited by “categorisation based on previous practice”.9 The exercise of the power must be principled, but the criterion is “injustice”.10

As such, Mellor J held that the court had jurisdiction to grant the relief COPA sought.11 The question was whether it ought to do so. He further noted that there was no principle