GYH v Persons Unknown

A claim brought under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 may be finally determined under the Part 8 procedure even though default judgment under Part 12 is unavailable. The court may grant final injunctive relief against persons unknown where the defendant cannot yet be identified. The absence of an identified defendant is not itself a bar to relief. Summary judgment is appropriate where the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason for a trial. The order should preserve the ability of an identified defendant to seek variation or discharge.

The claimant sought final injunctive relief and damages under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in respect of an alleged campaign involving online publication of private and allegedly defamatory information. The defendants were persons unknown. An interim injunction had previously been granted by Warby J, following which the claimant continued efforts to identify and serve those responsible.

The claim was issued under Part 8. At the return hearing, the claimant sought disposal of the claim, a final injunction and damages, with assessment of damages stayed pending identification of the defendants. The central issues were whether the court could dispose of the Part 8 claim, whether final relief could be granted against persons unknown, and whether the claim met the summary judgment threshold.

1. Part 8 disposal. Although CPR r 8.1(5) prevents a claimant using Part 8 from obtaining default judgment under Part 12, Practice Direction 8A para 8.1(1) permits the court on the hearing date to hear the case and dispose of the claim. The court therefore had jurisdiction to determine the claim.
2. Persons unknown. Final injunctive relief may be granted against persons unknown. The fact that the individuals responsible for the publications had not been identified did not bar relief. The court relied on Brett Wilson LLP v Person(s) Unknown [2016] 4 WLR 69 and the approach in Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [2014] EWHC 3429 (QB).
3. Merits and summary judgment. The earlier interim decision had found that the harassment claim was made out and that there was no good reason to expect a compelling or persuasive defence. At the final stage, the court applied CPR r 24.2. The defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and there was no compelling reason for a trial or further hearing. The claimant's limited engagement with some online material did not amount to consent to the materially different and more intrusive publications complained of.
4. A final injunction would assist protection of the claimant's Article 8 rights. Its terms protected any identified defendant by permitting an application for variation or discharge.
5. The claim for damages was granted as part of the disposal of the action, but assessment was stayed. Any assessment hearing had to be on notice to the defendants, who would have an opportunity to contend that damages should not be awarded.