London Borough of Enfield v Persons Unknown

An interim injunction may restrain organised or impromptu car cruising where the evidence shows a serious issue involving dangerous driving, nuisance or anti-social behaviour and the balance of convenience favours protection of residents and public rights. The existence, expiry or possible renewal of a public spaces protection order does not prevent an injunction where that remedy is insufficiently deterrent. An injunction against persons unknown must be clearly defined, limited territorially and temporally, publicised by effective alternative service, and provide a reasonable opportunity to apply for variation or discharge. A power of arrest may be attached where prohibited conduct creates a significant risk of personal injury or death.

The claimant local authority sought an interim injunction in Part 8 proceedings to prevent car cruising within defined areas of the borough between 3 pm and 7 am. The proposed defendants were persons unknown who participated in, attended with the relevant intention or expectation, or promoted, organised or publicised gatherings involving racing, stunts, dangerous driving or obstructive driving.

The application followed repeated incidents and complaints, including dangerous driving, serious nuisance and risks to public safety. A previous public spaces protection order had expired and had not materially deterred the activity. The central issues were whether an injunction against persons unknown was justified, whether alternative service and dispensation from personal service were appropriate, and whether a power of arrest could be attached.

1. Interim injunction granted. The evidence established at least a serious issue to be tried concerning repeated dangerous driving, racing, stunts, nuisance and anti-social behaviour. The balance of convenience favoured an injunction, including against newcomers to the activity.
2. The court adopted the principles summarised in Wolverhampton City Council and others v Persons Unknown and others [2024] EWHC 2273 (KB), including the principles governing precautionary relief and the local authority’s statutory powers. The criteria identified in Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2023] UKSC 47 were satisfied. There was a compelling need to protect residents and control the public highway, and no other remedy adequately met that need.
3. The existence of a public spaces protection order, its expiry, or the possibility of a further order did not weigh against relief. Following Sharif v Birmingham City Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1488, a public spaces protection order was materially less effective because it required consultation, created a non-arrestable offence and imposed only financial sanctions. The injunction was therefore not excluded by the statutory alternative.
4. No Convention right was engaged by the prohibited conduct. Article 8 did not extend to anti-social behaviour with others, and Article 11 was not engaged because the conduct was not association for campaigning or protest. Procedural protection was nevertheless provided by publication and a right to apply for variation or discharge on 48 hours’ notice.
5. The order was sufficiently clear and closely matched the threatened unlawful conduct. It was confined to the borough, defined by an exhibited map, and limited to a period of no more than one year before review, following High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd and another v Persons Unknown and others [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB). The claimant could satisfy any future damages award, and no cross-undertaking in damages was required in the circumstances, following Cambridge City Council v Traditional Cambridge Tours Ltd [2018] EWHC 1304 (QB).
6. Alternative service was authorised. Publication by signs, newspapers, websites, social media and other suitable means constituted good reason under CPR 6.15. Personal service of the injunction and power of arrest was dispensed with, and time for service was extended under CPR 7.6.
7. A power of arrest was attached under section 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2007. The significant-risk-of-harm condition was met because the prohibited activities created a risk of personal injury or death. The power was limited to participants who were drivers or passengers in a motor vehicle.