London Borough of Hackney v Persons Unknown In London Fields, Hackney (The 'prescribed Area')

An interim injunction against persons unknown must remain a private law remedy directed to parties alleged to have committed, or imminently threaten to commit, a tort. The defendants must be defined by reference to the allegedly unlawful conduct and be capable of identification and service. An order cannot bind park users who are not defendants merely because they enter the area. Prohibited acts must correspond to the threatened tort, be clear and precise, and be geographically and temporally limited. Lawful conduct cannot ordinarily be prohibited where the person is not alleged to be a tortfeasor. The court should not use interim relief to bypass statutory procedures for regulating public spaces. Any injunction must be genuinely interim, supported by a realistic prospect of trial, and proportionate to the rights affected.

The claimant local authority brought proceedings under Local Government Act 1972, section 222, seeking an injunction against unnamed persons alleged to commit public nuisance in London Fields. An emergency interim injunction was granted by Thornton J on 3 July 2020 for the weekend following the relaxation of Covid-19 restrictions. The claimant sought its extension for one year.

The court considered the proper defendants, the prohibited conduct, a proposed alcohol ban, service, a power of arrest, duration, and directions for trial. The central issues were whether the proposed order could bind all users of the park, whether alcohol consumption could be restrained, and what limits applied to interim relief against persons unknown.

1. Defendants and scope. Applying the guidance in Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 303, an injunction against persons unknown remained a private law claim for tort. Defendants had to be defined by reference to the allegedly unlawful conduct and be capable of identification and service. The proposed order could not bind everyone entering London Fields, including people who were neither accused nor intended to be sued.
2. Alcohol prohibition. The court refused to prohibit drinking alcohol, including liquid reasonably believed to be alcohol. Drinking alcohol was not itself arguably a public nuisance, and the proposed restriction would have affected persons who were not defendants. The existing Public Spaces Protection Order provided statutory protection. Granting the injunction would also risk short-circuiting the statutory procedures, including consultation and consideration of Articles 10 and 11 rights, required before a further order could be made.
3. Form and service. The claim was amended under CPR 19.2 and 19.4. Service of the amended claim could not be dispensed with under CPR 6.16, but alternative service was authorised under CPR 6.15 because the defendants could not presently be identified and included future users engaging in the defined conduct. The prohibitions were revised to improve clarity.
4. Arrest and duration. A power of arrest was attached only to specified prohibitions where section 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 was satisfied. A limited interim injunction was granted until 4 pm on 16 October 2020, with a trial listed in the week commencing 12 October 2020 and liberty to apply. The court expressed considerable doubts about the underlying claim but held that those issues should be determined at trial.

Not an appeal. The application concerned extension and variation of an interim injunction previously granted by Thornton J on 3 July 2020 in the same proceedings.