BBG v Persons Unknown

An interim injunction may be granted without notice where secrecy is essential or there are good reasons for proceeding without notice, including a real risk that notification would facilitate disclosure of private information. In blackmail cases, anonymity and private hearings may be ordered where publicity would defeat the purpose of the proceedings or deter victims from seeking justice. Persons unknown may be sued where the defendants are identifiable and defined by reference to unlawful conduct. Interim relief requires a sufficiently real and imminent risk of the threatened torts, clear and precise prohibitions, and appropriate temporal limits. Alternative service may be authorised where there is good reason, including service by the only available means of communication.

The intended claimant sought urgent interim relief, without notice, against persons unknown who were allegedly blackmailing and harassing him by threatening to disclose intimate and confidential information. The application concerned misuse of private information and harassment. The court considered whether the hearings should be private, whether the claimant and proceedings should remain anonymous, whether notification should be dispensed with, whether the defendants were sufficiently identifiable, and whether interim relief and alternative service should be granted.

The application was heard privately on 18 September 2023, with a further hearing on 20 September 2023 to finalise the order. The central issues were whether the statutory and procedural conditions for urgent without-notice interim relief were met and whether the injunction could properly be framed against persons unknown.

1. Private hearings and anonymity. The hearings were properly held in private because publicity would defeat the object of the application, damage the confidentiality of the information, and prejudice the proper administration of justice. Anonymity was strictly necessary under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. A reporting restriction under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was also justified.
2. Without-notice application. The evidence established good reasons for proceeding without notice. Notification created a real risk that the defendants would disseminate the information before the hearing. Those circumstances also constituted compelling reasons for non-notification if section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 applied. The court made no determination whether that subsection was engaged.
3. Persons unknown. The defendants were sufficiently defined because they were capable of identification by the usernames and telephone numbers used to contact the claimant and were defined by reference to unlawful conduct. The claimant’s undertaking to take reasonable steps to trace and serve them was appropriate.
4. Merits and interim relief. The information was plainly private and confidential, and the claimant was likely to establish misuse of private information. The defendants’ persistent and deliberate conduct was also likely to amount to harassment under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. If freedom of expression rights were engaged, the defendants’ rights were weak and the claimant was likely to succeed at trial. Otherwise, there was a serious question to be tried, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance supported interim relief.
5. The injunction was sufficiently clear and corresponded to the threatened torts. It had appropriate temporal limits and was therefore consistent with the guidance in Canada Goose. Alternative service by WhatsApp was authorised because it was the only presently available means of communication and there was good reason to depart from ordinary service methods. Service out of the jurisdiction was also permitted on the evidence suggesting that the defendants might be abroad and that the harm would be suffered in England and Wales.