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 on 'Persons Unknown' because the proposed methods could not reasonably be expected to bring proceedings to the attention of all potential defendants, none of whom were presently identifiable. Without valid service, the court's 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 there was insufficient proof of imminent risk or past acts amounting to public nuisance.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1378
Parties
Claimant: City of London Corporation; Defendants: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (interim Injunction Application) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Application for Interim Injunction and Alternative Service
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Service of Claim Form, Persons Unknown Defendants, Public Nuisance, Anti Social Behaviour, Byelaws Enforcement, Quia Timet Relief
Civil Procedure Public Law Local Government Law Environmental Law Interim Injunctions Service of Claim Form Persons Unknown Defendants Public Nuisance +3 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of London Corporation

Claimant

Persons Unknown

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (interim Injunction Application) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Application for Interim Injunction and Alternative Service

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 on 'Persons Unknown' is permissible under CPR 6.15
  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 on 'Persons Unknown' because the proposed methods could not reasonably be expected to bring proceedings to the attention of all potential defendants, none of whom were presently identifiable. Without valid service, the court's 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 there was insufficient proof of imminent risk or past acts amounting to public nuisance.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

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