Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd & Ors v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty & Ors

The court may grant an injunction against persons unknown where the class is described with sufficient certainty to identify those included and excluded. The absence of named defendants does not itself prevent joinder or relief. The court must balance the risk of injustice to the claimant against any potential injustice to persons unknown and must frame the prohibited conduct precisely. A final injunction may be granted summarily where the defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there is no compelling reason for a trial.

The claimants sought final injunctive relief against identified defendants and persons unknown associated with protests against the claimants’ pharmaceutical research activities. Earlier injunctions and interim orders had restrained harassment, violence and related unlawful conduct. The claimants relied on evidence indicating that groups connected with the protest movement intended, or were likely, to continue unlawful activity.

The central issues were whether persons unknown could properly be joined and restrained, whether final relief was just and convenient, and whether the claim could be determined by summary judgment.

1. Persons unknown. The court had power to grant relief against defendants described as persons unknown. Under CPR 55.3(4), and consistently with Bloomsbury Publishing Group Plc v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003] 1 WLR 1633, the overriding objective did not require defendants to be named where a sufficiently certain description identified both those included and those excluded. The same approach had been used in harassment cases involving unidentified members of a group, including Stone and Williams v “WXY” [2012] EWHC 3184 (QB).
2. Appropriate relief. The description of the second defendants was sufficiently precise. The evidence demonstrated a substantial risk of injustice to the claimants if relief were withheld. The terms of the injunction had been amended to describe the prohibited conduct precisely, and the balance justified final relief.
3. Final and summary determination. Section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 permitted a final injunction where it was just and convenient. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rules 24 and 24.2, summary judgment was appropriate because the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there was no compelling reason for a trial.
4. Order. Final injunctive relief was granted in the terms sought. The order included a penal notice, with permission to apply for consequential orders and directions.