City of London Corporation v Persons Unknown (As Defined In Appendix 1)

City of London Corporation v Persons Unknown (As Defined In Appendix 1)

The court refused the applications because the claimant failed to identify any defendant over whom the court could establish jurisdiction, making alternative service and the grant of an injunction impermissible. The proposed methods of service could not reasonably be expected to bring proceedings to the attention of all potential defendants, and the claim was, in substance, a contra mundum injunction, which is not an appropriate use of civil litigation. Even if jurisdiction had been established, the evidence did not justify a quia timet injunction as there was insufficient evidence of imminent or ongoing public nuisance by identifiable persons.

Parties
Claimant: City of London Corporation; Defendant: Persons Unknown (as defined in Appendix 1)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (injunction Application) / Interim Application for Injunction and Alternative Service
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Service of Process, Anti Social Behaviour, Public Nuisance, Quia Timet Relief, Jurisdiction Over Persons Unknown
Civil Procedure Local Government Law Public Order Injunctions Service of Process Anti Social Behaviour Public Nuisance 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of London Corporation

Claimant

Persons Unknown (as defined in Appendix 1)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (injunction Application) / Interim Application for Injunction and Alternative Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an interim injunction against 'Persons Unknown' in Epping Forest to restrain anti-social behaviour and public nuisance
  2. 2 Whether the court should permit alternative service of the claim form and application notices on 'Persons Unknown'
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has identified defendants over whom the court can establish jurisdiction for the purposes of granting relief

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the applications because the claimant failed to identify any defendant over whom the court could establish jurisdiction, making alternative service and the grant of an injunction impermissible. The proposed methods of service could not reasonably be expected to bring proceedings to the attention of all potential defendants, and the claim was, in substance, a contra mundum injunction, which is not an appropriate use of civil litigation. Even if jurisdiction had been established, the evidence did not justify a quia timet injunction as there was insufficient evidence of imminent or ongoing public nuisance by identifiable persons.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to serve the claim form by alternative method refused
  • Application for interim injunction refused