The Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Anor v Persons Unknown

Persons-unknown injunctions may restrain organised dangerous or antisocial driving where there is a compelling and imminent need, real risk of harm, and no effective reasonable alternative. The applicant must provide full and continuing disclosure, identify affected persons as precisely as possible, and give effective notice. The order must describe the prohibited conduct in everyday terms and impose minimum necessary territorial and temporal limits. Periodic review and a generous liberty to apply are required. A car-cruising injunction may include a power of arrest where the statutory risk-of-harm threshold is met. The court may refuse a cross-undertaking in damages where local authorities seek the order to enforce the law and no compensable loss is identified.

Westminster City Council and Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council applied for an injunction against persons unknown involved in, or promoting, organised car meets involving dangerous, obstructive or antisocial driving. The application concerned recurring gatherings in specified areas of Westminster and Kensington, including Exhibition Road, New Bond Street, Soho and Waterloo Place. The defendants did not appear. The court considered whether the injunction was justified under the safeguards governing newcomer injunctions, whether its territorial and temporal scope was sufficiently precise, and whether procedural fairness requirements had been met. The court also considered a power of arrest, alternative statutory measures and a cross-undertaking in damages.

1. Application granted in narrowed form. The court made a car-cruising injunction against two defined classes of persons unknown. It restricted the order to areas supported by evidence and prohibited clearly described conduct, including dangerous driving, racing, stunts, excessive noise and obstruction.
2. There was a compelling need. The evidence established recurring car meets, serious nuisance and danger to residents, workers, businesses and road users, including a pedestrian injury. Existing Public Space Protection Orders and enhanced policing had not provided an effective or sustainable remedy. The conduct constituted, or threatened, public nuisance and interfered with the Councils’ statutory highway duties under Highways Act 1980, section 130.
3. The safeguards for persons-unknown or newcomer injunctions applied. The Councils demonstrated a strong possibility of tortious conduct causing real harm, exhaustion or inadequacy of reasonable alternatives, and the need for the order was not premature. Full disclosure, caution in assessing evidence, precise identification, clear drafting, strict territorial and temporal limits, periodic review, advertisement, effective notice and a generous liberty to apply were required.
4. The injunction did not engage articles 8 or 10 of the Convention. Any interference with article 11 was necessary and proportionate for public safety, prevention of disorder and crime, and protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
5. A power of arrest was justified under section 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2007 because car cruising created a risk of harm. Spectators were excluded from that power, consistently with the approach in comparable cases.
6. The court refused a cross-undertaking in damages. The Councils were local authorities seeking to enforce the law, and there was no reason to require compensation for loss. The order was returnable within weeks, with future review and applications to vary or discharge available.

First-instance decision. No prior decision in the same proceedings is stated.