London Borough of Enfield v Persons Unknown & Ors

Alternative service under CPR 6.15(2) requires a good reason to validate the method used and evidence that the claim form was, or was likely to be, brought to the defendants’ attention. General awareness of proceedings is not equivalent to valid service of originating process.

A claimant obtaining an injunction against Persons Unknown ex parte must return the matter to court within a reasonable period when aware of a material change of circumstances, including a change in law, giving rise to a real prospect that the injunction should be amended or discharged. Where a proposed class contains no presently identifiable defendants, an interim injunction may provide more effective relief than any subsequent final order. That difficulty, together with the absence of evidence of threatened conduct, may justify refusing interim relief and adjourning the application.

The London Borough of Enfield obtained interim and final injunctions in 2017 against Persons Unknown concerning unauthorised encampments and fly-tipping. The claim form had not been personally served, and no order for alternative service or dispensation with service had been made.

The Council withdrew applications to amend the original claim and extend the final injunction. It then sought retrospective validation of service under CPR 6.15(2), and applied in fresh Part 8 proceedings for an interim injunction restraining fly-tipping at 96 sites. The central issues were whether service could be retrospectively validated and whether interim relief should be granted where no current wrongdoers had been identified.

1. Retrospective service. The application under CPR 6.15(2) was refused. The rule concerns retrospective validation of steps already taken. The relevant question is whether there was good reason to validate the method used, assessed by reference to whether the claim form had been, or was likely to have been, brought to the defendants’ attention. The fact that a defendant may have learned of the proceedings is important but insufficient by itself.
2. The Council’s website, library copies and newspaper advertisements did not establish actual or likely notice to the Persons Unknown. The evidence of digital exclusion meant that the steps were likely to reach only a minority. Had alternative service been sought in 2017, posting the claim form at each affected site would at least have been required. General community awareness did not amount to service, since service of the claim form subjects a person to the court’s jurisdiction.
3. Because no defendant had been validly served, the interim and final injunctions had been made without jurisdiction over any individual defendant. The original claim form had also expired under CPR 7.5.
4. Continuing duty concerning injunctions. A party that obtains an injunction against Persons Unknown ex parte and becomes aware of a material change of circumstances, including a change in law, giving rise to a real prospect that the injunction would be amended or discharged must restore the matter to court within a reasonable period for reconsideration. The duty is especially important where the usual adversarial safeguards are absent, and is not confined to public authorities.
5. New interim injunction. The application to restrain fly-tipping was refused and adjourned. Following Canada Goose UK Retail Limited v Persons Unknown, a final injunction binds only parties to the proceedings and does not bind newcomers. Since no current fly-tippers had been identified, there was no real prospect of effective service or enforceable final relief. There was also no evidence of current occupation or a specific threat. The wider issues concerning interim and final injunctions against Persons Unknown required fuller consideration, potentially with an amicus appointed by the Attorney General.