On crypto-related claims, chasing down defendants, and the circumvention of service.

A number of investors are seeking to bring a class-action suit against a number of public figures who endorsed FTX, including Tom Brady, Larry David, Naomi Osaka, and Shaquille O'Neal.

The investors claim that they have finally managed to serve papers on Shaq personally, despite him intentionally evading service.

Now, upon reading this, some of you might think less highly of Shaq, and wonder whether he was engaged in unfair shenanigans.

I suggest that things are not as straightforward as that.

Let's dive in, with some takeaways for folks who:
(a) are considering litigation against a hard-to-find person; or
(b) think they may be sued soon, and want to consider their options.

---

First, even in a digital world, physical contact remains relevant to litigation.

In many jurisdictions, if you want to sue someone, it is not enough to file the court papers with the court. After filing the papers, you will have to serve the papers on the person personally. For example, in Singapore, you have to find the person, and literally walk up to them and hand them the papers.¹

Brendan Tan and I once handled a matter (which has since concluded) in which he managed to effect personal service only after:
(a) a few hasty taxi rides;
(b) walking around an outdoors area to look for a particular individual (unsuccessfully); and
(c) running through a mall to finally reach the individual.

Exciting, I know.

Second, defendants owe no obligation to make it easy for claimants to sue them.

Put yourself in a defendant's position. You find out that someone wants to sue you. You believe the claims are frivolous, but even so, you will have to incur time and expense to defend yourself. And you know that court proceedings only formally begin after you've been served with the court papers.

So why should you make it easy for someone to launch an attack on you?

Third, you can run, but you can't hide.

Most jurisdictions do provide for alternative means of service, apart from physical service. For example, the English High Court has allowed the service of proceedings via a NFT on a blockchain.² In Singapore, the usual rule of thumb is that if 2 unsuccessful attempts have been made to effect personal service, the claimant can proceed to apply for substituted service orders.

Which brings me to an interesting point. In this case, surely the investors could have applied for substituted service, after their initial unsuccessful attempts. Why didn't they do so?

Were they concerned, for example, that the order for substituted service might eventually be set aside?³ Or could it be that they wanted to keep trying to effect personal service unsuccessfully, so that they could continue to draw attention to this case, and cast aspersions on Shaq?

I leave you to draw your own conclusions.