For the most part, Dr Wright’s positive case (as set out in sections II-IV of his Written Closing) did not pay any attention to COPA’s numerous forgery allegations, no doubt because his position is that they were unfounded. For that reason, in their Written Closing, Counsel for Dr Wright turned to COPA’s forgery allegations in section V and they raised a series of important general points which I address here. I emphasise that I have taken these points into consideration when making my findings in the Appendix.

First, I was reminded that COPA’s forgery allegations are not a freestanding part of COPA’s claim and they are ultimately sub-issues to the broader Identity Issue. I agree with that submission. Counsel for Dr Wright held out the beguiling prospect that, ‘if the Court considers itself able to determine the Identity Issue without having regard to Dr Wright’s Reliance Documents, it will not need to trouble itself with the complex and lengthy detail of COPA’s forgery allegations.’

In my judgment, it would have been a denial of my responsibility as the Judge if I were to decline to decide the forgery allegations. Anticipating that, Counsel for Dr Wright provided me with their responses to all the forgery allegations, in three parts. The original forgery allegations are dealt with in their Appendix 1 to their Closing; the Additional Forgery allegations are addressed in section V.B. at [220]-[222] and the Ontier Email allegation in section V.C. at [223]-[234]. In what follows I address the submissions in these three sections, which must be combined with the detailed submissions from COPA and the Developers.