Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown

A final quia timet injunction requires a strong probability that, without restraint, the defendant will infringe the claimant’s rights. The anticipated harm must also be so grave and incapable of adequate later remedy that an immediate interim injunction and damages would not suffice.

Relief against persons unknown may define defendants by a future prohibited act, but the description must identify who falls within it. The injunction must be precisely tailored to the evidenced threat and no wider than strictly necessary.

The claimant owned and had an immediate right to possession of parts of the former Tetley Brewery site in Leeds. It sought final quia timet relief against persons unknown to prevent future trespass.

There had been past incursions involving caravans. The claimant also relied on risks of illegal raves, fly-tipping, site hazards and likely unrecoverable removal costs. Interim relief had been granted by Hildyard J and continued pending the final hearing.

The central issues were whether persons unknown could be defined by their future acts, whether the evidence satisfied the test for final preventive relief, and whether the proposed order was drawn with sufficient precision.

1. The application succeeded in part. A final prohibitory quia timet injunction was appropriate against persons unknown seeking a non-transient occupation of the site, including by caravans, and against persons organising, involved in, or participating in raves. The evidence did not establish the necessary risk of fly-tipping.

2. Proceedings may be brought against persons unknown defined by their future infringing acts. The description must be sufficiently certain to identify both those within and outside the class. A person falling within such a description becomes a party by committing the prohibited act. The court applied the approach in Bloomsbury Publishing Group plc v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003] EWHC 1205 (Ch) and South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell [2005] EWCA Civ 1429.

3. The governing test for final preventive relief has two stages. There must be a strong probability of a future breach unless restrained. The resulting harm must be so grave and irreparable that a prompt interim injunction after the breach, coupled with damages, would be inadequate. The court followed London Borough of Islington v Elliott [2012] EWCA Civ 56 and Lloyd v Symonds [1998] EWCA Civ 511.

4. The claimant met both stages for the caravan and rave risks. Its security measures had not prevented prior trespass. The site’s hazardous condition created serious safety risks, and removal and clean-up costs were unlikely to be recoverable in practice. The second stage was therefore satisfied.

5. The proposed blanket prohibition on entering or remaining without written consent was too broad and unworkable. It could catch emergency services and a fluctuating lawful workforce, and it extended beyond the classes for which a strong probability of trespass had been established. Consistently with Hampshire Waste Services Ltd v Intending Trespassers Upon Chineham Incinerator Site [2003] EWHC 1738 (Ch), the order had to target the feared class of defendants. Interim relief was extended to 30 September 2018 or further order, personal service was dispensed with, and a properly drafted final order was to be put in place.

High Court (Chancery Division): Hildyard J granted an interim injunction on 4 May 2018. It was continued pending the final hearing. This judgment determined the claim for final relief; no appeal history is stated.