Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors

At a review of a quasi-final injunction against persons unknown, the court must consider whether material factual or legal changes have occurred since the order was granted or last reviewed. The review is not a rehearing of the original merits. A reduction in unlawful activity does not itself establish that the underlying risk has abated where the order appears to have had a deterrent effect and the conduct continues. Protective relief may remain justified where there is sufficient evidence, damages are inadequate and a compelling justification persists. A claimant may be permitted to discontinue a claim involving a draconian injunction where it no longer seeks relief, the remaining claimants consent and discontinuance causes no prejudice.

The judgment concerned the second annual review of a quasi-final injunction and power of arrest obtained by four local authorities to restrain car cruising and associated dangerous or obstructive driving. The first, third and fourth claimants sought continuation with minor amendments. The second claimant sought permission to discontinue its claim. The defendants, comprising persons unknown and named individuals previously found in contempt, did not attend or appear.

The court considered service, the effect of the second claimant’s withdrawal, updated evidence of continuing street-cruising activity, and inconsistencies in the existing order concerning its geographical scope and expiry. The central issues were whether the protective orders remained necessary and what amendments were required.

1. Discontinuance. Permission was granted to the second claimant to discontinue. Although it was unnecessary to decide whether the quasi-final injunction was an interim injunction for the purposes of CPR 38.2(2)(a), permission was appropriate in any event. The remedies were draconian, the claimant no longer sought them, the other claimants consented, the proposed terms were less restrictive for defendants, and no prejudice was shown.
2. Review approach. The court applied the approach identified in Wolverhampton City Council & others v London Gypsies and Travellers & others [2023] UKSC 47 and North Warwickshire Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 2403 (KB). The review focused on material factual or legal change since the last order, rather than revisiting the original merits afresh.
3. Continuation. The second claimant’s withdrawal and the reduction in street cruising were material changes, but did not undermine the remaining claimants’ cases. The causes of action and potential defences remained unchanged. Updated evidence, including successful contempt applications, police monitoring, complaints and diversionary courses, proved continuing activity. The injunction had a deterrent effect, but that reduction did not show that the risk had abated. Damages remained inadequate and compelling justification for protection continued.
4. Amendments and final orders. The geographical area was amended to remove the second claimant’s administrative area. The substance of the injunction was otherwise maintained. Its term and the power of arrest were corrected and continued until 23.59 on 1 March 2027. Alternative service remained appropriate, and roadside signage requirements were reinstated. No further annual review was required because the order would expire by effluxion of time. Replacement injunction and power-of-arrest orders were to discharge and replace the existing orders upon service.

The judgment records that an urgent interim injunction was granted by Hill J on 22 December 2022, followed by a quasi-final injunction granted by Julian Knowles J on 27 February 2024. The first annual review was decided by Ritchie J on 26 February 2025 in [2025] EWHC 1102 (KB). This court conducted the second annual review and replaced the amended orders with revised orders.