Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Persons Unknown

An injunction against persons unknown may continue where there remains a sufficiently real and imminent risk of tortious conduct and the order remains necessary and proportionate. The court must ensure that the defendants are described with sufficient certainty, that effective notice can be given, and that the injunction has clear geographical and temporal limits. Its terms should correspond to the threatened tort and be clear enough to identify prohibited conduct, although that correspondence is not an absolute rule where wider restraint is necessary to protect the claimant’s rights. A continuing review should consider the order’s operation, breaches, publicity and practical effectiveness.

Four local authorities sought the scheduled review of a three-year extension of an injunction prohibiting car cruising in the Black Country area. The review was conducted on written representations because of the COVID-19 movement restrictions. The authorities consulted the public through social media and local media and received four responses, including evidence that the problem persisted and that the injunction remained important while police and NHS resources were under pressure.

The court also considered the continuing propriety of injunctions against persons unknown, including a pending challenge to a related Birmingham injunction and the requirements identified by the Court of Appeal.

1. The order continued in force. The evidence showed an ongoing need for quia timet relief. The injunction had been effective, but the underlying problem persisted and its dangers were increased by pressure on police and NHS resources.
2. The court applied the requirements stated in Boyd v Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 515: a sufficiently real and imminent risk of tort; inability to name the likely tortfeasors; effective notice; clear and precise terms; correspondence between the order and the threatened tort; and clear geographical and temporal limits.
3. The qualification identified in Cuadrilla v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9 was noted. The requirement that an injunction correspond to the threatened tort is not absolute where restraint of otherwise non-tortious conduct is necessary to provide effective protection. The court considered that requirement satisfied in any event because much of the conduct was unlawful or tortious and the injunction operated only when conduct crossed a defined threshold.
4. Following the approach adopted in NWBC v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 1603 (QB), the description of persons unknown was sufficiently certain, the order was proportionate, and alternative service by signs, press releases, websites and social media was effective. The policing of such events did not justify variation or discharge.
5. The pending challenge to the related Birmingham injunction did not presently justify interference. If the Court of Appeal determined that injunctions of this kind should not be made, the order could then be referred back to the court. No further order was required.

The judgment records that an earlier injunction was made on 1 December 2014 and extended on 9 January 2018. It also records a related challenge dismissed by HHJ McKenna in [2019] EWHC 1268 (QB), with an appeal pending. The present court conducted the scheduled review and continued the order.