London Borough of Ealing v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 2132 (QB) (13 July 2021)

London Borough of Ealing v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 2132 (QB) (13 July 2021)

The Claimant did not make an application for alternative service of the claim form as required by CPR 6.15, nor provide evidence to support such an application. The procedural error was not in the application but in failing to make one at all, which cannot be remedied by CPR 3.10. The method of service used could not reasonably be expected to bring proceedings to the attention of all persons unknown. The claim form was not validly served and is no longer valid; the proceedings cannot continue.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2132 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Ealing; Defendant: Persons Unknown; Intervenor: Intervenors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Application for Validation of Alternative Service and Continuation of Proceedings
Outcome
Claimant's application refused; proceedings dismissed.
Legal Topics
Alternative Service, Persons Unknown Defendants, Interim Injunctions, Civil Procedure Rules, Service of Claim Form
Civil Procedure Injunctions Local Government Law Alternative Service Persons Unknown Defendants Interim Injunctions Civil Procedure Rules Service of Claim Form

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Ealing

Claimant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Intervenors

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Application for Validation of Alternative Service and Continuation of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR 3.10 can remedy failure to comply with CPR 6.15(4) regarding alternative service of claim form
  2. 2 Whether service effected was valid alternative service
  3. 3 Whether proceedings can continue against persons unknown given procedural defects

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant did not make an application for alternative service of the claim form as required by CPR 6.15, nor provide evidence to support such an application. The procedural error was not in the application but in failing to make one at all, which cannot be remedied by CPR 3.10. The method of service used could not reasonably be expected to bring proceedings to the attention of all persons unknown. The claim form was not validly served and is no longer valid; the proceedings cannot continue.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application refused; proceedings dismissed.

Orders

  • Injunction order of 10 May 2019 discharged.
  • Claimant must remove all copies of the injunction order from sites where displayed.