The claimant brought proprietary and money claims against the first and second defendants, who were unknown and unidentified, alleging that they had defrauded him of Bitcoins and a sum of cash. The court made an order permitting alternative service on the defendants. On the claimant’s application for summary judgment of his claims, the question arose whether defendants, the identities of whom were unknown, were amenable to final judgment.
On the application—
Held, application granted. The only purpose of serving proceedings, including by any method of alternative service, was so that the court had jurisdiction over defendants, which included those who were deemed to have been served but who chose not to acknowledge the jurisdiction. Although enforcement might be an insurmountable problem, the fact that by the stage of giving judgment the defendant was still not identifiable was not a reason against the court exercising its jurisdiction to grant relief, including by the grant of a final money judgment. In the present case, the first and second defendants had no real prospect of defending the claim and there was no reason why the jurisdiction that had been established against them by the alternative service directed by the court should not culminate in the ultimate purpose for which it was invoked by the claimant. Accordingly, summary judgment would be entered against the first and second defendants (paras 19, 35, 47, 48, 56–57).
Andrew Maguire (instructed by HCR Legal LLP) appeared for the claimant.