Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors

Injunctions against persons unknown who may engage in future unlawful conduct are a distinct form of without-notice relief, whether framed as interim or final. They may be granted only where detailed evidence shows a compelling need to protect civil rights or fulfil a statutory objective, no adequate alternative exists, and the order is just and convenient. Procedural safeguards are essential: precise identification of the affected class, clear prohibitions, strict territorial and temporal limits, effective notice, full disclosure, periodic review and a generous liberty to apply. Precautionary relief requires an imminent and real risk of harm, and an injunction supporting criminal law remains exceptional. Mere criminality is insufficient; the evidence must show that the conduct will continue and that ordinary sanctions will not effectively restrain it. Those requirements justified borough-wide restrictions on car cruising, including organised participation and spectators, while excluding innocent presence.

Two conjoined applications by Wolverhampton, Dudley, Sandwell and Walsall, and by Birmingham City Council, sought fresh borough-wide injunctions against named defendants and persons unknown. The injunctions were intended to restrain car cruising, including dangerous driving, racing, stunts, organising and participation as spectators.

The claims relied principally on public nuisance, statutory highway duties and local-authority powers. Earlier interim injunctions granted by Hill J on 22 December 2022, reported at [2023] EWHC 56 (KB), and continued by Freedman J on review on 13 February 2023, reported at [2023] EWHC 722 (KB), had reduced the activity, but cruising continued. The central issues were whether the risk was imminent and real, whether the principles governing newcomer injunctions were satisfied, whether criminal sanctions, Public Spaces Protection Orders and byelaws were adequate alternatives, and whether the injunctions could properly cover spectators and comply with Article 11.

Disposition. Fresh injunctions were granted against named defendants and persons unknown. Ancillary orders were made, including powers of arrest and the joinder of a further defendant.

1. Legal basis. The general power under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 permitted interlocutory or final relief where just and convenient. Precautionary relief required an imminent and real risk of harm, with imminence meaning that the application was not premature. Car cruising was capable of constituting public nuisance because it materially affected the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of persons. The local authorities also relied on section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 and section 130 of the Highways Act 1980.
2. Injunctions supporting criminal law. Such relief was exceptional and had to be exercised with caution. Mere criminal infringement was insufficient. The evidence had to justify the inference that the unlawful conduct would continue unless effectively restrained and that nothing short of an injunction would be effective. Those requirements were met. Criminal sanctions were reactive and inadequate. Public Spaces Protection Orders and byelaws were not realistic alternatives.
3. Persons unknown. Applying Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2024] 2 WLR 45, an injunction against newcomers was treated as substantively without notice, whether formally interim or final. It required compelling justification, inadequate alternative measures, procedural protection, full disclosure, strict territorial and temporal limits, and justice and convenience. The order also required precise identification, clear everyday wording, effective notice, periodic review and a generous liberty to apply.
4. Application of the principles. The evidence established a real and imminent risk of serious injury or death, including actual fatalities, and showed that the activity remained ongoing. The extensive geographical area was justified by the mobile nature of street racing. The prohibitions were clear, matched the pleaded claims, and were time-limited and reviewable. Spectators and organisers could be included because their participation or encouragement increased the danger; mere presence was insufficient, and innocent bystanders were protected. A power of arrest under section 27(3) of the Police and Justice Act 2006 was appropriate, but did not extend to spectators.

The proceedings began under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Hill J granted urgent interim injunctions and powers of arrest on 22 December 2022, reported at [2023] EWHC 56 (KB). Freedman J continued them following review on 13 February 2023, reported at [2023] EWHC 722 (KB). The present court considered the applications afresh and granted fresh injunctions.