- Interim and final injunctions against unidentified defendants (Canterbury City Council v Persons Unknown)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Service of the claim form/jurisdiction
- Renewal/extension of a final order
- Other issues
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision of Mr Justice Nicklin is another robust judgment in the context of interim and final injunctions obtained by local authorities (in this case, Canterbury City Council) against ‘Persons Unknown’ (in this case, as described by the relevant witnesses, ‘persons living a traveller lifestyle’). The decision criticises the ‘feeding frenzy’ of local authorities in the context of these injunctions (as explained by the Court of Appeal in London Borough of Bromley v Persons Unknown) and strongly cautions against making attempts to obtain such injunctions simply because other local authorities have succeeded in doing so. The court indicated here that as the claim form had not been served, no order had been made permitting service of the claim form by alternative means, the court had not dispensed with the requirement to serve the claim form and the period within which to complete the relevant step to serve the claim form had expired, Canterbury City Council had failed to establish jurisdiction over the Persons Unknown. As a result, the proceedings were in reality a nullity and the injunction orders should all be set aside. Written by Oliver Browne, partner and chair of the London Litigation & Trial Department, at Latham & Watkins.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial