Jockey Club Racecourses Limited v Persons Unknown & Ors

An injunction against newcomers is in substance a without-notice injunction, whether formally interim or final. It is available as a novel equitable remedy only where the evidence shows a compelling need to protect civil rights, a strong possibility of tortious harm causing real harm, no adequate practical alternative, and justice and convenience in favour of relief. The claimant must give full and frank disclosure and provide effective procedural protection, including precise identification of affected persons, clear and limited terms, strict territorial and temporal limits, periodic review, notice and a generous liberty to apply. The court must balance the injunction against Articles 10 and 11 rights. A longer period may be justified for a recurring annual event, provided the order is reviewed.

At a Part 8 disposal hearing, Jockey Club Racecourses Limited sought continuation of injunctive relief against persons unknown to restrain trespass and disruption at Epsom racecourse. An interim injunction had previously been granted in the same proceedings: [2023] EWHC 1811 (Ch). The identified defendants later settled by giving five-year undertakings, leaving the proceedings against categories of persons unknown.

The central issues were whether a newcomer injunction could properly be granted, whether the required evidential and procedural safeguards had been met, and how the proposed order affected Articles 10 and 11 rights.

1. Relief granted. The court granted the newcomer injunction, subject to final adjustments to the draft order. The evidence established a serious and continuing risk of disruptive trespass, with potential danger to people and horses and damage for which damages would not be an adequate remedy. The proposed conduct would also interfere with the claimant’s rights under the Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Act 1984.
2. Nature and governing principles. Following Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2024] 2 WLR 45, an injunction against newcomers is in substance a without-notice injunction, regardless of whether it is formally interim or final. The court applied the requirements identified in that decision, adapting them where the case concerned protesters rather than Travellers.
3. Conditions and safeguards. There was a compelling need for protection, a strong and imminent possibility of tortious harm, and no practical alternative. Negotiation had failed. Byelaws and criminal sanctions were inadequate deterrents, while policing and stewarding could not reliably prevent the threatened conduct. The claimant had complied with its continuing duty of full and frank disclosure, including disclosure of evidence favourable to the defendants. The proposed order identified the affected persons and prohibited conduct by reference to specific areas and activities, imposed territorial limits, provided for effective notice and a generous liberty to apply, and included annual review.
4. Duration. The Supreme Court’s indication that more than one year might not be justified in Traveller cases did not govern this protest case. A five-year term was appropriate for an annual event, subject to annual review.
5. Convention rights. The court considered the Article 10 and Article 11 rights of protesters. Any interference was necessary in a democratic society to prevent disorder and crime and to protect the rights of the claimant and racegoers. The balance clearly favoured the injunction. The court had regard to Exolum Pipeline System Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1015 (KB) on that balancing exercise.

No appeal was described. The judgment recorded these prior procedural stages:

• An interim injunction was granted by Sir Anthony Mann in the same proceedings: [2023] EWHC 1811 (Ch).
• On 15 March 2024 Roth J directed the identified defendants to take steps if they intended to defend and permitted further evidence.
• The identified defendants subsequently settled by giving five-year undertakings. The present judgment determined the continuation of relief against the remaining persons unknown.