• A judgment in Peter McCormack’s case against Craig Wright has concluded that Wright must pay the court fees of McCormack on an indemnity basis, amongst other findings.
• The trial has also set up an inquiry into Wright for contempt of court, as he breached an embargo by sharing details of the judgment prior to the embargo date.
• McCormack is being directed to pay approximately $1.1 million (900,000 British pounds) in legal costs.

A recent judgment in Peter McCormack’s case against Craig Wright has concluded that Wright must pay the court fees of McCormack on an indemnity basis, amongst other findings. The judgment was delivered by Justice Chamberlain of the Royal Courts of Justice and sets up a further inquiry into Wright for contempt of court. This stems from an apparent violation of an embargo on a draft judgment by Wright, as he shared details of the judgment prior to the embargo date in the MetaNet Slack.

The court of appeal had signaled that breaches of the embargo are likely to result in contempt proceedings. In addition, the court has directed McCormack to pay approximately $1.1 million (900,000 British pounds) in legal costs, subject to evaluation by a cost judge. McCormack has expressed his distress over the situation, noting that it has had a significant impact on him and his family over the last four years.

This case follows a previous court trial in the U.K. in which McCormack was sued for calling Wright a “liar” and “fraud” in 2019, which Wright argued caused monetary damages after he had speaking roles canceled. The court did, in that case, rule in Wright’s favor, but only after pointing out that he submitted false evidence, which in turn led to an awarding of only 1 British pound in nominal damages. In October of 2022, Wright had lost his defamation trial against pseudonymous Bitcoiner Hodlonaut. The lawsuit involved whether or not the Bitcoiner had defamed Wright by calling him a fraud.

The judgment from the Royal Courts of Justice in the McCormack-Wright case serves as a reminder of the serious consequences for breaching court orders and embargoes. In addition, it highlights the importance of accurate representation of facts in all legal cases, as the court ruled in favor of McCormack based on Wright’s submission of false evidence. The court’s ruling is also a warning to parties who might attempt to use court proceedings as a means of personal vendetta, as the nominal damages awarded to Wright demonstrate the futility of this approach.