Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd & Anor v Unknown Persons

Interim injunctions against unidentified protesters may extend to future newcomers who can be identified and served. Defendants must be defined by allegedly unlawful conduct, and effective service must bring the proceedings and order to their attention. Relief requires a sufficiently real and imminent risk of a tort, clear prohibitions, and geographical and temporal limits. Otherwise lawful conduct may be restrained only where, and to the extent that, no other proportionate means protects the claimant’s rights. Intention may be included in understandable terms where strictly necessary, although describing the conduct’s effect is preferable. A final injunction in protester proceedings binds parties who are identifiable and have been served before the order. It cannot extend to future newcomers who are not then parties. Speculative awareness of proceedings does not justify dispensing with service.

Canada Goose UK Retail Limited, a clothing retailer selling products containing animal fur and down, opened a store on Regent Street. Its store manager, James Hayton, brought proceedings with the company on behalf of employees, security personnel and other protected persons. Animal rights protests outside the store were generally peaceful, although some protesters committed unlawful acts. The claimants sought damages and injunctions against a broadly described class of unknown protesters.

Teare J granted an interim injunction restricting conduct, demonstrations within exclusion zones and loud-hailer use. HHJ Moloney QC continued the injunction with variations. PETA, an animal rights charity involved in some demonstrations, joined the proceedings in its own right and representatively. The claimants later sought summary judgment for a final injunction, but abandoned that application against PETA.

Nicklin J refused summary judgment and discharged the interim injunctions in [2019] EWHC 2459 (QB). He found defective service, an excessively broad defendant description and impermissible injunction terms. The claimants appealed, challenging those conclusions and seeking remission of the summary judgment application. The central issues concerned service on unknown defendants and the permissible scope of interim and final injunctions against existing and future protesters.

The appeal was dismissed. The refusal of summary judgment and discharge of the interim injunctions were upheld.

1. The judge’s discretionary case-management decisions could be disturbed only for an error of principle or an exercise outside the proper bounds of discretion. The slip rule in CPR 40.12 corrected accidental departures from the court’s intention; it did not permit additional thoughts. There was no evidence that Teare J had considered alternative service of the claim form. His order accurately reproduced the draft presented to him, so amendment was properly refused ([42]–[44]).

2. Service subjects a defendant to the court’s jurisdiction and must enable participation in the proceedings. Following the principles in Cameron v Liverpool Insurance Co Ltd, [2019] UKSC 6, emailing documents to an organisation without requiring wider notification could not reasonably bring them to unknown protesters’ attention. Neither speculative awareness nor failure to challenge served injunctions constituted exceptional circumstances justifying dispensation under CPR 6.16. Effective alternative service remained available ([45]–[55]).

3. Interim relief could extend to future newcomers capable of identification and service. Building on Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown, [2019] EWCA Civ 515, the court required conduct-based defendant descriptions, a real and imminent tort risk, effective service, clear prohibitions and geographical and temporal limits. Known and identified defendants had to be joined individually. The originating description included entirely lawful protesters with no connection to the store, and the orders also suffered from defective alternative service ([57]–[66]; [82]–[88]).

4. The prohibition on restraining lawful conduct required qualification. In light of Hubbard v Pitt, Burris v Azadani and Cuadrilla Bowland Limited v Persons Unknown, [2020] EWCA Civ 9, otherwise lawful conduct could be restrained only where, and to the extent that, no other proportionate means protected the claimant’s rights. The injunctions contained prohibitions not confined to unlawful conduct. Teare J’s order also lacked a time limit; the continued order contained a conditional long-stop ([73]–[78]; [82]–[87]).

5. As guidance, intention could appear in injunction terms where strictly necessary, expressed in understandable language and provable without undue complexity. The contrary observations in Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown were unnecessary to that decision and were rejected. Describing the effect of conduct was preferable where practicable ([79]–[82]).

6. A final protester injunction could bind anonymous but identifiable wrongdoers served before the order. It could not bind future newcomers who were not then parties. The ordinary inter partes principle in AttorneyGeneral v Times Newspapers Ltd, [1992] 1 AC 191, applied; exceptional worldwide injunctions did not justify extending it. The proposed final injunction exceeded those limits and retained a defendant description encompassing potentially lawful conduct. Private litigation was also poorly suited to permanent regulation of fluctuating public demonstrations. The evidence ground required no determination ([89]–[97]).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2020] EWCA Civ 303 , dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal of summary judgment and discharge of the interim injunctions.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Nicklin J, in [2019] EWHC 2459 (QB) , refused summary judgment for a final injunction and discharged the existing interim injunctions.
• High Court: On 15 December 2017, HHJ Moloney QC, sitting as a High Court judge, continued the interim injunction with variations, including changes to the exclusion zones and loud-hailer restrictions.
• High Court: On 29 November 2017, Teare J granted an interim injunction without notice against persons unknown.