Beyond the declarations I have already made, there was and remains a significant dispute over what further relief I should grant, particularly as to the injunctive relief sought by COPA and the Developers. Initially, it appeared to be common ground that disputes over relief were best left to be addressed at a form of order hearing following the hand down of this Judgment. However, in Lord Grabiner KC’s oral closing on Day 22, he urged me to decide all questions of relief in this Judgment and made submissions accordingly. Mr Hough KC addressed the issues raised over declaratory relief but urged me to defer my decision on injunctive relief until after (a) this Judgment had been handed down and (b) further argument in the light of it.

I have concluded that I should defer the issues of injunctive relief. They will be argued at a Form of Order hearing to be appointed after the hand down of this Judgment.

What remains is for me to thank all Counsel, Solicitors and their teams for the immense amount of work which has gone into this case, and I commend all for their high standards of professionalism in this hard-fought litigation. I also pay tribute to the organisation and presentation of the documents on the Opus2 platform. There was a vast volume of documentation on that platform for this Trial. Many of the documents were long but the relevant part was frequently only one or two lines. If we had worked from hard copy bundles, I am sure this Trial would have taken weeks longer.

I should add that the respective teams conducted their respective cases with great efficiency. On Dr Wright’s side, his team led by Lord Grabiner KC and Mr Craig Orr KC undertook Dr Wright’s challenging case. As I mention on the title page, Mr Terence Bergin KC and Jack Castle represented the Claimants in the BTC Core claim, served short Skeleton Arguments and made brief oral submissions. Lord Grabiner KC and Craig Orr KC shared the cross-examination of COPA’s witnesses.

As appears from my summary of the expert evidence above, COPA undertook all the heavy lifting on the expert evidence from their side and almost all of it on the evidence of fact, with the Developers serving no expert evidence of their own and evidence of fact from Dr Wuille alone. There was no overlap in the cross-examinations of Dr Wright conducted by Mr Hough KC for COPA and Mr Gunning KC for the Developers, even though COPA bore the burden of proving their allegations of forgery as set out in the Appendix. As I mentioned above, the challenges to Dr Wright posed by Dr Wuille’s evidence were used to significant effect in support of the Developers’ case that Dr Wright was not Satoshi, and they also provided significant support to COPA’s case, both generally and on certain of the allegations of forgery. Finally, I should also add that Mr Hough KC and Mr Gunning KC were model leaders, giving their respective juniors, Mr Jonathan Moss and Ms Beth Collett, the opportunity to undertake some cross-examination in this major trial.

At the very start of the Trial, I mentioned that remote links to the proceedings had been provided (on individual request) to over 400 people from all over the world. By the conclusion of the Trial, that number had risen to over 1100, reflecting the wide interest in this Trial. All the recipients of those remote links owe a debt of gratitude to my clerk, Susan Woolley, and other court staff, for organising and providing those links, although I know that many thanked her personally by email and in generous terms. The vast majority of recipients abided by the conditions I imposed on each recipient of a remote link. In the very few cases where those conditions were breached, the breach was either swiftly remedied and an apology provided, or access was removed.