Summary
Final injunctions in civil proceedings bind the parties identified and served when the order is made. They do not bind “newcomers” who later fall within a description of Persons Unknown. The interim Gammell approach does not extend beyond final judgment. Local authorities have no special statutory power to obtain such final orders: Local Government Act 1972 s.222 confers standing, while planning and anti-social behaviour provisions do not authorise the claimed regime. A contra mundum injunction is confined to exceptional cases where it is the only means of protecting an engaged Convention right. Broad Traveller Injunctions, which pre-judge individual Article 8 rights and resemble legislation, do not meet that threshold. Interim relief against Persons Unknown remains available only with strict service, identification, proportionality and case-management safeguards.
Factual background
The judgment arose from the court’s review of 38 local-authority claims in which Traveller Injunctions had been granted against named defendants and/or Persons Unknown. Interveners representing Gypsies and Travellers, together with the Attorney General’s advocate, participated. The court considered whether it could revisit final injunctions, whether final orders could bind newcomers or be made contra mundum, how parties to existing orders could be identified, and what interim relief remained available. It also examined service, statutory causes of action, powers of arrest and dormant claims.
Held
The court rejected the local authorities’ case that final Traveller Injunctions could bind newcomers or be granted contra mundum.
- Jurisdiction over final orders. Although finality is fundamental, the court retains jurisdiction under CPR 3.1(7) and CPR 3.3 to vary or discharge an injunction where its terms potentially affect persons who had no opportunity to be heard. That jurisdiction may be exercised on the court’s own initiative. The permission-to-apply provisions in the relevant orders reinforced this conclusion.
- Final orders and newcomers. A final injunction is a remedy following determination of rights between the claimant and the Trial Defendants. Applying Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] 1 WLR 2802, and the principle in Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd (No.3) [1992] 1 AC 191, it can bind only parties to the proceedings when the order is made. The South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell [2006] 1 WLR 658 principle operates at the interim stage only. A person may then become a defendant by conduct bringing them within the defined class, but cannot become a party after final judgment.
- Statutory powers. Local Government Act 1972 s.222 and Highways Act 1980 s.130 confer standing, not substantive causes of action. Section 187B of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 concerns actual or apprehended breaches of planning control and does not authorise final injunctions binding unidentified newcomers. Part 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is directed to injunctions against identified respondents.
- Contra mundum relief. The High Court has jurisdiction under s.37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, but the jurisdiction is exceptional and practically confined to cases where such an order is the only means of protecting an engaged Convention right and refusal would breach s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Traveller Injunctions did not meet that test. Their breadth prevented the required individualised and proportionate assessment of Article 8 rights, and local authorities had other statutory enforcement powers.
- Interim relief and case management. Interim injunctions against Persons Unknown remain possible where there is a sufficiently real and imminent risk of a tort, effective service is possible, and the terms are clear, proportionate and geographically and temporally limited. Claimants must actively identify defendants, return the matter promptly to court and progress the claim to final determination. Consequential orders included discharge of injunctions against newcomers and further directions for the remaining claims.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Appeal route
- This judgment [2021] EWHC 1201 (QB) High Court (Queen's Bench Division)
- Appealed to[2022] EWCA Civ 13Outcomeappeal allowed unanimously.
- Appealed to[2023] UKSC 47Outcomeappeal dismissed unanimously
Key cases cited
The 30 most senior of 34 authorities cited.
- Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2019] UKSC 6
- Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12
- Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs v Meier and another [2009] UKSC 11
- Attorney-General's Reference No. 3 of 1999: Application by the British Broadcasting corporation to set aside or vary a Reporting Restriction Order [2009] UKHL 34
- Wrexham County Borough Council (Appellants) v. Berry (Respondent) South Bucks District Council (Appellants) v. Porter and another (FC) (Respondent) Chichester District Council (Appellants) v. Searle and others (Respondents) (Consolidated Appeals) [2003] UKHL 26
- Her Majesty's Attorney General (Appellant) v. Punch Limited and another (Respondents) [2002] UKHL 50
- Sharif v Birmingham City Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1488
- Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd & Anor v Unknown Persons [2020] EWCA Civ 303
- The London Borough of Bromley v Persons Unknown (Rev 3) [2020] EWCA Civ 12
- Boyd & Anor v Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 515
- Serious Organised Crime Agency v O'Docherty (aka Mark Eric Gibbons) & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 518
- Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority [2009] EWCA Civ 444
- Birmingham City Council v Shafi & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 1186
- Secretary of State for the Environment Food & Rural Affairs v Meier & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 903
- South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1429
- Mid-Bedfordshire District Council v Brown & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1709
- Worcestershire County Council v Tongue & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 140
- Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169
- Birmingham City Council v Afsar [2020] EWHC 864 (QB)
- RXG v Ministry of Justice & Ors [2019] EWHC 2026 (QB)
- GYH v Persons Unknown (Responsible for the Publication of Webpages) [2017] EWHC 3360 (QB)
- Kerner v WX & Anor [2015] EWHC 178 (QB)
- OPQ v BJM [2011] EWHC 1059
- Terry and Persons Unknown [2010] EWHC 119
- A Local Authority v W [2005] EWHC 1564 (Fam)
- Deg-Deutsche Investitions-Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft MBH v Koshy & Ors [2004] EWHC 2896 (Ch)
- Bloomsbury Publishing Group Ltd. & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd. & Ors [2003] EWHC 1205 (Ch)
- Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Thompson v News Group Newspapers Ltd) [2001] EWHC 32 (QB)
- X v Persons Unknown [2007] EMLR 10
- Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 3) [1992] 1 AC 191
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority and the other 4. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
9 later cases · 8 positive · 1 caution
Most senior citing decisions:
- Birmingham City Council v Persons Unknown [2026] EWHC 373 (KB) approved
- Anton Chirkunov v Person(s) Unknown & Anor [2024] EWHC 3177 (KB) followed
- MBR Acres Limited & Ors v Free the MBR Beagles & Ors [2022] EWHC 3338 (KB) explained
- National Highways Limited v Persons Unknown & Ors [2022] EWHC 3497 (KB)
- Thurrock Council v Martin Stokes & Ors [2022] EWHC 1998 (QB)
- NATIONAL HIGHWAYS LIMITED v PERSONS UNKNOWN CAUSING THE BLOCKING OF, ENDANGERING, OR PREVENTING THE FREE FLOW OF TRAFFIC ON THE M25 MOTORWAY, A2, A20 AND A2070 TRUNK ROADS AND M2 AND M20 MOTORWAY, A1(M), A3, A12, A13, A21, A23, A30, A414 AND A3113 TRUNK ROADS AND THE M1, M3, M4, M4 SPUR, M11, M26, M23 AND M40 MOTORWAYS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTESTING & ORS. [2022] EWHC 1105 (QB)
- MBR Acres Limited v Free the MBR Beagles [2021] EWHC 2996 (QB)
- City of London Corporation v Persons Unknown (As Defined In Appendix 1) [2021] EWHC 1378 (QB)
- Winch & Ors, (Persons Formerly Known As) (Contra Mundum Injunction) [2021] EWHC 1328 (QB)
Sign in for the full treatment table. A free account is enough.