header-logo header-logo

21 April 2021 / Valya Georgieva , Jeremy Clarke-Williams
Issue: 7929 / Categories: Features , Defamation , Cyber
printer mail-detail

A Bit-ter dispute: libel claims & lis pendens

46642
Valya Georgieva & Jeremy Clarke-Williams consider the landmark Court of Appeal decision on lis pendens under the Lugano Convention in a Bitcoin libel dispute
  • Lis pendens doctrine applied in global defamation claims.
  • Criteria for determining whether parallel proceedings involve the same cause of action under Art 27 of the Lugano Convention.

Bitcoin continues its roller-coaster ride after recently hitting a new record high of US$64,000. Aside from the growing cryptoeconomy, the increasing buy-in from institutional investors and the increasing scope of cryptocurrency regulation, one other factor that has the potential to affect the price of cryptocurrency is the disclosure of the identity of Bitcoin’s mysterious inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto (Satoshi).

Since 2016 (seven years after the creation of Bitcoin), Craig Wright (Dr Wright), an Australian computer scientist and businessman, has claimed to be Satoshi, a statement doubted by many in the crypto world.

In January 2021, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of Craig Wright v Magnus Granath

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll