City of London Corporation v Persons Unknown (As Defined In Appendix 1) [2021] EWHC 1378 (QB) (24 May 2021)

City of London Corporation v Persons Unknown (As Defined In Appendix 1) [2021] EWHC 1378 (QB) (24 May 2021)

The court refused the application for alternative service of the claim form because the proposed methods could not reasonably be expected to bring proceedings to the attention of all defendants, given none were presently identifiable. Without valid service, jurisdiction was not established, and no interim injunction could be granted. Even if jurisdiction had been established, the evidence did not justify a quia timet injunction for public nuisance, as the risk was not sufficiently real or imminent and the terms sought were disproportionate.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1378 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: City of London Corporation; Defendants: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim for Interim Injunction / Interim Application Ruling
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Service of Process, Public Nuisance, Anti Social Behaviour, Quia Timet Relief, Persons Unknown Defendants
Civil Procedure Public Law Environmental Law Injunctions Service of Process Public Nuisance Anti Social Behaviour Quia Timet Relief +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of London Corporation

Claimant

Persons Unknown

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim for Interim Injunction / Interim Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can grant an interim injunction against 'Persons Unknown' where no identifiable defendants exist
  2. 2 Whether alternative service of the claim form under CPR 6.15 is permissible in this context
  3. 3 Whether the evidence justifies a quia timet injunction for public nuisance

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the application for alternative service of the claim form because the proposed methods could not reasonably be expected to bring proceedings to the attention of all defendants, given none were presently identifiable. Without valid service, jurisdiction was not established, and no interim injunction could be granted. Even if jurisdiction had been established, the evidence did not justify a quia timet injunction for public nuisance, as the risk was not sufficiently real or imminent and the terms sought were disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Refusal of permission to serve the claim form by alternative method under CPR 6.15
  • Refusal of interim injunction against 'Persons Unknown'