The computer scientist who claims to have invented the bitcoin digital currency has indicated that he will contest a criminal contempt charge over the alleged breach of an embargo on a libel judgment.

In a directions hearing yesterday, counsel for Dr Craig Wright told Mr Justice Nicklin that the proportionality of the action, as well as the admissibility of legally privileged material and issues of mens rea, would be among matters raised at a substantive hearing in April. 

The hearing followed a ruling by Mr Justice Chamberlain in December. The judge, who had previously awarded Wright £1 in damages over libels in tweets by blogger Peter McCormack, said that social media posts had apparently revealed the result ahead of its hand-down. Chamberlain said he would issue a summons requiring Wright to attend a hearing.

Both parties in the case, represented by specialist media barristers, appeared at yesterday's hearing. For Wright, Greg Callus of 5RB said that his client had not seen the amended summons, which he had just received by email. 

'Why not?' the judge asked.

'Because it has not been served, My Lord.'

'That's a surprising approach to adopt,' the judge said. 

'No. That's the way that Section 81.5 [of the Civil Procedure Rules] works,' Callus said, adding that he was under no obligation to serve on behalf of the court and that his client was attending voluntarily in order to assist the court.

'Good,' the judge replied. 

Previously, the barrister challenged the judge's assumption that the underlying facts of the apparent leak had been 'essentially admitted' in a report by Wright's solicitors, specialist London firm Ontier. Callus said he was not able to concede any admissions on the facts.

That stance was 'rather contrary to the apology offered in the Ontier report', Nicklin said. He went on to remind Wright that an admission to the court would be reflected in any penalty imposed. 'That is entirely up to him.'

Rebutting an argument that the contempt action was disproportionate, the judge referred to the master of the rolls' warning last year that breaches of embargoes would be treated seriously. 

Nicklin also challenged a suggestion that the attorney general should be brought in to the case. 'My view at the moment is it is absolutely straightforward,' Nicklin said. 'The underlying grounds have for all practical purposes been admitted by the defendant. The question is whether these matters amount to contempt. I do not see the necessity to involve the attorney general.'

For McCormack, Catrin Evans KC of Matrix Chambers said she was neutral on whether the attorney general should be involved 'other than not wishing to prosecute ourselves'. 

A date of 3 April was agreed for opening a two or three day substantive hearing after Callus told the court that it might need to take oral evidence and handle 'quite complex' matters of admissibility. Callus told the court that Wright would accept a summons by email. 

Nicklin said that McCormack should not be required to take on the role of prosecutor. 'You're welcome to attend, but not required to do any heavy lifting,' he said.