ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note summarises a number of key and/or illustrative cases relevant to injunctive relief, with particular focus on the period from September 2019 to 31 December 2024. It is not maintained and is for background information only. For guidance and links to content on the principles applied by the courts when considering whether to grant an interim or final injunction, see: Interim and final injunctions—overview. For summaries of illustrative decisions from 1 January 2025 onwards, see Practice Note: Injunctions—illustrative decisions (2025). Case details and analysis Judgment date Case summary King’s Bench Division Shell UK Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 3130 (KB) 5 December 2024 This judgment provides an example of the High Court granting ‘final’ injunctive relief against persons unknown (including newcomers) as well as named defendants in a protester case (interim injunctions having been granted in Shell’s favour in 2022, and successfully renewed in 2023 and 2024 across three sets of proceedings). In particular, the court addressed each of the ‘guidelines’ which Richtie J had outlined

Family analysis: What are the common problems with committal orders? Cara Nuttall, senior associate in the family law team at Slater & Gordon, comments on two recent rulings which emphasise that injunctive orders must be carefully drafted if they are to achieve what they set out to do.

In the context of family relationships, the powers of the court to give protection to a victim of domestic violence, or to secure financial assets in order to prevent their dissipation, or the setting aside of financial transactions made with the intention of defeating a financial claim.

Information analysis: On 31 March 2023, Mr Justice Ritchie handed down judgment in Armstrong Watson LLP v Persons Unknown. The claimant, an accountancy firm, sought an urgent ex-parte injunction to prevent the dissemination of confidential information stolen from its IT systems by unidentified cyber criminals. The hearing was heard in private and the injunction granted. The case is a helpful summary of the criteria to be applied when considering injunctive relief and the competing rights which the court will take into account. It is also a reminder of some practical considerations for practitioners when considering whether to seek a ‘persons unknown’ injunction in the aftermath of a cyber-attack. Written by Maya Mills (associate) and Philip Tansley (partner) at Osborne Clarke LLP.

Background There are circumstances where an insolvency practitioner (IP) may require an injunction against a person or entity to either stop them from doing something, or require them to do something, ie preventative or mandatory injunctions. There are areas where injunctive relief is of a type common to litigants generally and then there are areas where the relief is specific to the insolvency regime. There are many situations in which IPs will find themselves litigating against others and where injunctive relief may be useful; generally, in claims intended to recover assets (or evidence) in a corporate or personal insolvency, which are properly due to the insolvent estate and where there is a real risk of those assets (or evidence) being disposed of, or put beyond the reach of the IP, who is bringing a claim. While injunctions are expensive and hard work, early consideration of their use can preserve assets and freeze information in real time, which makes it harder for a defendant to elongate proceedings. Interim injunctions are very much at the discretion

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court granted declarations and injunctive relief to protect the English jurisdiction from foreign proceedings that sought to undermine settled English authority. Mr Justice Marcus Smith held that exceptional circumstances justified interference where a South Carolina receivership constituted a collateral attack on established English precedent. The judgment reinforces the court’s readiness to use declaratory and injunctive remedies against foreign overreach, confirms that ‘long-arm’ receiverships lacking proper connection will not be recognised, and upholds corporate separateness principles from Adams v Cape. Written by Justin Perring of New Square Chambers.

TMT analysis: Following a judgment that Dr Craig Wright is not the creator of the Bitcoin system (Satoshi Nakamoto), the court granted a number of injunctions against Dr Wright threatening or pursuing further claims/counterclaims based on associated allegations and requiring Dr Wright to publicise the court’s findings on his own website, and on X and Slack. The court refused to grant wider orders additionally preventing Dr Wright from asserting certain IP rights or publishing statements claiming that he was Satoshi, finding that the injunctions preventing claims and counterclaims were already sufficient and further restrictions would be disproportionate. However, it also granted liberty to apply for further injunctions for two years. The court considered the general principles applicable to injunctions, how these apply to the protection of IP rights, freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the principles underpinning dissemination orders. Written by Sarah Ellington, partner at Watson Farley & Williams.

Law360, London: Two former police officers urged an appeals court on 21 May 2024 to revive their claim that pensions rules for those disabled in the line of duty are discriminatory, arguing that an employment tribunal was wrong to find it had no jurisdiction over the question.

This Practice Note considers liability for accidents caused by animals straying onto highways. It explains the main principles of negligence that typically govern these claims and highlights circumstances where the Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971) may apply. The guidance assists lawyers in evaluating ownership, control measures and foreseeability, which are key for advising on liability and evidential requirements. Issues to consider Most cases involving animals straying onto the highway will be decided under the law of negligence. A claim could also be brought in public nuisance but this is unlikely to add much to a claim in negligence. This is because in order to create a public nuisance the defendant must have committed an act or omission which causes the animals to be able to stray on to the highway in the first place. In addition, some cases have succeeded under AA 1971. There is a duty on anyone who keeps animals in a field next to a road to take reasonable care to prevent their escape in order to prevent

This Practice Note deals with negligence, occupiers’ liability, trespass against the person and nuisance in the context of claims involving animals. For guidance on claims brought under the Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971), see Practice Notes: Liability under the Animals Act 1971—dangerous species and Liability under the Animals Act 1971—all other animals. This Practice Note will consider the other possible causes of action. For an overview on which causes of action may be applicable, see Practice Note: Types of claim involving animals. Negligence The normal principles of negligence apply to people who own or control animals. All people in charge of their animals are under a duty to take reasonable care to prevent injury to others. Actions in negligence are still important as it can be difficult to satisfy the conditions required for liability under the AA 1971. The scope of any duty of care depends on the particular circumstances including the previous behaviour of the animal, its capacity to harm and the circumstances of the

This Practice Note considers the issues that can arise in personal injury claims arising from dog attacks and dog bites, focusing on liability under the Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971) and in common law negligence. It highlights the importance of evidence of a dog’s previous behaviour, specific considerations for guard dogs and key issues when assessing eligibility for a Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) award. Dog’s previous behaviour For most canine claims, the dog’s behaviour in the past is all-important. In a claim in negligence, the claimant must prove that the defendant should have foreseen the risk of injury and taken reasonable steps to prevent it. If the owner had no reason to anticipate the behaviour, it will not be possible to establish liability. The dog’s history will also be important in a personal injury claim brought under AA 1971, s 2(2) where it is alleged that the dog has displayed behaviour that is abnormal for the dog’s species. Unless there is evidence that the defendant keeper (or keeper’s employee or member of the keeper’s

The Weeds Act 1959 (WA 1959) regulates injurious weeds. It applies to England, Wales and Scotland (as amended), but does not extend to Northern Ireland. This Practice Note covers England and Wales only. What are injurious weeds? Injurious weeds are those prescribed in WA 1959: • Common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) • Broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius) • Curled dock (Rumex crispus) • Creeping or field thistle (Cirsium arvense), and • Spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare) They are all native or naturalised species that grow naturally across much of the UK. WA 1959 may also apply to such additional injurious weeds as may be prescribed by the minister by regulations. Guidance on the identification of injurious weeds prescribed in WA 1959 is available from Defra. The regime under the WA 1959 should be distinguished from the separate regulatory framework governing invasive non-native species. The injurious weeds listed in the 1959 Act are native or long-established species and are regulated solely to prevent harm to agriculture. By contrast, non-native