Hampshire Waste Services Ltd & Ors v Persons Intending To Trespass And Or Trespassing Upon Incinerator Sites

Proceedings may be brought against unnamed defendants identified by description. The description must be sufficiently certain to distinguish those included from those excluded. It may cover no person or several people, but should use objectively ascertainable conduct rather than a legal conclusion or an individual's subjective intention.

A clear case for an interim injunction is not defeated merely because enforcement may prove difficult. Where the defendants cannot be identified in advance, the court may authorise alternative service by prominently displaying the proceedings and order at the affected premises.

Four operators of waste-incineration sites applied without notice for an interim injunction against unidentified protesters expected to enter six sites during a forthcoming global day of action. Previous incursions had caused shutdowns, danger, disruption and substantial unrecovered losses. Damages and ordinary enforcement measures were considered inadequate.

The principal issues were whether proceedings and injunctive relief could be directed against defendants described rather than named, how that class should be defined, and whether the claim form, evidence and order could be served by affixing them conspicuously around the sites.

1. Application granted. The threatened entry presented a clear case for interim relief. An incursion would require a plant to shut down for health and safety reasons and would cause substantial, irrecoverable damage and disruption.

2. Proceedings could be brought against defendants identified by description rather than name. The description had to be sufficiently certain to identify both those falling within the class and those outside it. It did not matter that the description might ultimately apply to nobody or to more than one person.

3. The proposed reference to persons “trespassing” was inappropriate because it incorporated a legal conclusion. “Intending to trespass” was also unsuitable because it depended upon a subjective intention which might be unknown and could change. The defendants were instead to be described objectively as persons entering or remaining without the claimants' consent on any of the specified sites in connection with the identified event.

4. Possible difficulty in enforcing the injunction was not a reason to withhold it where the case for interlocutory relief was otherwise clear.

5. Alternative service was authorised under rule 6.8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Securely affixing the claim form, order, witness statements and exhibits in conspicuous places around the six sites constituted good service. Although the relevant practice direction referred to evidence of attempts to serve by permitted means, no such attempt was required where the need had not yet arisen and the unidentified class made alternative service appropriate.

6. The order was to contain the claimants' cross-undertaking in damages and permit any affected person to apply promptly to vary or discharge it after giving the claimants' solicitors 12 hours' written notice. A formal return date was unnecessary. Costs were reserved, and the claimants undertook to issue the claim form and application notice.

not stated in the judgment.