MBR Acres Limited & Ors v Gillian Frances McGivern

In contempt proceedings for breach of a Persons Unknown injunction, alternative service must comply strictly with the court’s order if relied on to establish notice to the criminal standard. A person may fall within a defined category of Persons Unknown by performing a prohibited act, but service remains necessary under the approach in Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWCA Civ 357. Actual ignorance may affect penalty; constructive knowledge cannot replace proof of service. The court may also require permission before further contempt applications against Persons Unknown as a proportionate case-management safeguard. The application was dismissed as totally without merit, and a targeted permission requirement was imposed.

The Claimants had obtained an injunction regulating conduct around the Wyton Site. The Respondent, a solicitor who was not a named defendant, admitted acts shown on CCTV which fell within the defined categories of Persons Unknown. The Claimants alleged that alternative service bound her to the injunction and sought committal for eight breaches.

The central issues were whether alternative service had strictly complied with the order, whether the Respondent became bound before each alleged act, and whether she knew the injunction’s terms. The application also raised the Court’s power to control future contempt applications. The underlying Injunction Judgment was reported at [2021] EWHC 2996 (QB).

1. Disposition. The contempt application was dismissed and certified as totally without merit.
2. Alternative service. Where an alternative-service order is relied on in contempt proceedings to establish notice of an injunction, its terms must be complied with strictly and service must be proved to the criminal standard. The Claimants had displayed only the first page of the covering letter, failed to provide the required explanation of how supporting documents could be accessed, and used a different Dropbox address from that specified in the order. Placing copies elsewhere did not cure those defects. The service point was therefore decisive.
3. Persons Unknown. On the assumption that service had been established, the principle in South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell [2006] 1 WLR 658 applied. A newcomer becomes a defendant and bound by the injunction when an act brings that person within the defined category. The first two alleged breaches occurred before the Respondent came within the category; the third act would have done so. The Court noted tension between that approach and LB Barking & Dagenham v Persons Unknown [2022] 2 WLR 946, but did not resolve it.
4. Knowledge and evidence. Under the approach in Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWCA Civ 357, further mens rea is unnecessary after service, although ignorance may affect penalty. The Court found that the Respondent had not known of the injunction and that constructive knowledge could not substitute for service. The Court also held that failure to put a matter in cross-examination does not bind the tribunal of fact. It is ordinarily a matter affecting fairness and the weight of the evidence, which must be assessed overall, consistently with Griffiths v TUI (UK) Ltd [2022] 1 WLR 973.
5. Future applications. Although the conditions for a limited civil restraint order were not met, the Court had case-management power to require permission before any further contempt application against a person alleged to fall within the Persons Unknown categories. The Claimants must show a real prospect of success, avoid wholly technical or insubstantial breaches, and provide evidence of actual knowledge of the injunction before the alleged breach. The restriction was necessary and proportionate to protect the Court’s processes and respondents from abusive or futile proceedings.