ZSCHIMMER & SCHWARZ GMBH & CO KG CHEMISCHE FABRIKEN v. PERSONS UNKNOWN & ANOR
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
ONG CHEE KWAN JC
[SUIT NO: WA-22NCC-600-12-2020]
13 FEBRUARY 2021

Abstract:

A self-identification order, also known as a 'Spartacus' or 'I am Spartacus' order, compels persons unknown to identify himself/herself and to provide an address for service. The self-identification order would require placement of an advertisement in local newspapers of a notice against the person(s) unknown and this notice would alert the persons unknown of the order for them to self-identify within seven days of the advertisement, failing which, they risk committal proceedings.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Writ and statement of claim – Amendment – Application to add additional defendants to suit – Whether proposed defendants would prejudice existing defendants – Whether application would change nature of suit if allowed – Whether necessary to add proposed defendants as parties to suit – Whether dispute could be completely determined with addition of proposed defendants – Whether proposed defendants closely connected to reliefs and remedies claimed in suit – Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 6(2)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction – Proprietary injunction – Application for – Application against proposed defendants – Whether there was serious issue to be tried on merits – Whether balance of convenience in favour of granting injunction – Whether just and convenient to grant injunction

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction – Mareva freezing injunction – Application for – Application against proposed defendants – Whether there was good arguable case – Whether proposed defendants have assets within jurisdiction – Whether there was risk of assets being removed before judgment could be satisfied

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders – Self-identification order – Push payment fraud – Plaintiff defrauded by persons unknown – Proprietary and Mareva freezing injunctions obtained against persons unknown – Whether court ought to grant self-identification order – Whether necessary – Whether effective in alerting persons unknown to reveal themselves – Whether applicable in fraud cases

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Service – Substituted service – Whether defendant likely to be evading service after being aware of suit – Whether personal service impracticable – Whether application for substituted service ought to be allowed – Whether application would prejudice defendant if allowed – Rules of Court 2012, O. 62 r. 5(1)