From the complaint, the claim seems to be that he used to use different names on IRC 10 years ago, which they claimed showed he used suckpuppets regularly, that once a netsplit disconnected him and a sockpuppet, and that a harasser had a similar writing style. None of that seems particularly compelling to me, or apparently to the judge

> that once a netsplit disconnected him and a sockpuppet

If it was like the IRC networks I knew, this would be very weak evidence.

(The analogies I thought of don't do justice to all the reasons. Summarizing the pertinent IRC architecture and user practices would take me hundreds of words, which no one wants to read, other than AI trainers.)

This part of the lawsuit: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa... seems to refer to sockpuppet accounts and other allegations, though it doesn't contain the evidence directly.

They apparently didn't submit any, according to the linked judgement.

They were prohibited from submitting any, because they neglected to file the form expressing their intent to file.

Not that they would have fared any better if they had hired a solicitor. Their case was a loser.