Sheffield Environmental Services & Ors v Persons Unknown

An injunction against persons unknown may be granted where the applicant demonstrates a compelling need to protect civil rights, procedural safeguards the rights of affected persons, complies with its disclosure obligations, and shows that relief is just and convenient.

The order must correspond closely to the unlawful conduct, extend no further than necessary, and contain strict territorial and temporal limits, effective publicity, and liberty to apply. In protest cases, lawful picketing and persuasion must be distinguished from conduct that substantially and unreasonably obstructs access to private land.

The claimants, companies involved in waste-management services, sought an injunction against masked persons associated with industrial action organised by Unite the Union. The defendants allegedly obstructed vehicles entering and leaving five operational sites, causing delays, dropped bin collections and additional costs.

The claimants did not challenge lawful picketing or leaflet distribution. The application was made against persons whose identities were unknown, and no defendant appeared. The principal issues were service, the existence of arguable trespass and private nuisance, the effect of Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, the proportionality of the proposed injunction, and the appropriate duration and wording of the order.

1. Outcome. An injunction was granted in revised terms for the period of the industrial action at the Sheffield City Council contract. The order preserved liberty to apply to vary or discharge it.
2. Persons unknown and procedural safeguards. Following Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2024] UKSC 47, relief against persons unknown is exceptional and requires a compelling need for protection not adequately met by other remedies, procedural protection for affected rights, full and frank disclosure, and proof that the injunction is just and convenient. The claimants’ website publication, emails and notices at the sites were sufficient reasonable steps for service. They also complied sufficiently with CPR 55.6 and CPR 16.5.
3. Causes of action. The evidence established more than a realistic prospect of success in private nuisance. Repeated circular walking substantially and unreasonably interfered with access to and use of the claimants’ land. Trespass was also arguable, although trespass onto the land had become minimal after boundary lines were painted. Public use of the highway may include protest, and protest may be lawful under Articles 10 and 11, but those rights did not justify conduct designed to prevent vehicles leaving rather than persuade workers.
4. Proportionality and drafting. The injunction was proportionate. Lawful picketing was excluded, the prohibited conduct was identified by reference to prior unlawful conduct and precise locations, and less restrictive measures had failed. The original wording, including “slow down”, was too vague and the proposed three-year duration was unjustified. The revised order was limited to the notified industrial action and could be the subject of further applications if later lawful strike action occurred.