Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors [2024] EWHC 2273 (KB) (03 September 2024)

Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors [2024] EWHC 2273 (KB) (03 September 2024)

The court granted the injunctions because the claimants demonstrated a compelling need to restrain car cruising, which constitutes public nuisance and anti-social behaviour causing real harm; criminal and other remedies are inadequate; the requirements for injunctions against persons unknown are satisfied under Supreme Court guidance; the orders are clear, limited, and proportionate; and procedural safeguards are in place.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2273 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Wolverhampton City Council; Claimant: Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council; Claimant: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council; Claimant: Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council; Claimant: Birmingham City Council; Defendant: Persons Unknown (various descriptions); Defendant: Anthony Paul Gale; Defendant: Wiktoria Sczcublinska; Defendant: Isa Iqbal; Defendant: Mason Phelps; Defendant: Rebecca Richold; Defendant: Ahzi Nagmadin; Defendant: Rashani Reid; Defendant: Thomas Whittaker; Defendant: Arthur Rogers; Defendant: ABC; Defendant: Mr Mohammed Wajahas Shabbir; Defendant: Zoe Lloyd; Defendant: Callum Blunderfield; Defendant: Gurbinder Singh Sahota; Defendant: Connor Hill; Defendant: Asim Rahman; Defendant: Aman Kayani; Defendant: Adhnan Mohammed; Defendant: Mohammed Daanyaal; Defendant: Bradley Hayes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction Application (public Nuisance, Anti Social Behaviour) / Final Judgment on Application for Injunctions and Ancillary Orders
Outcome
Injunctions granted as sought, with ancillary orders including powers of arrest and joinder of additional defendant.
Legal Topics
Injunctions Against Persons Unknown, Public Nuisance, Anti Social Behaviour, Local Authority Statutory Duties, Precautionary (quia Timet) Relief, Powers of Arrest, Adequacy of Alternative Remedies, Human Rights (article 11 Echr)
Public Law Civil Procedure Local Government Law Tort Law Injunctions Against Persons Unknown Public Nuisance Anti Social Behaviour Local Authority Statutory Duties +4 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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wolverhampton City Council

Claimant

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

Claimant

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Claimant

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

Claimant

Birmingham City Council

Claimant

Persons Unknown (various descriptions)

Defendant

Anthony Paul Gale

Defendant

Wiktoria Sczcublinska

Defendant

Isa Iqbal

Defendant

Mason Phelps

Defendant

Rebecca Richold

Defendant

Ahzi Nagmadin

Defendant

Rashani Reid

Defendant

Thomas Whittaker

Defendant

Arthur Rogers

Defendant

ABC

Defendant

Mr Mohammed Wajahas Shabbir

Defendant

Zoe Lloyd

Defendant

Callum Blunderfield

Defendant

Gurbinder Singh Sahota

Defendant

Connor Hill

Defendant

Asim Rahman

Defendant

Aman Kayani

Defendant

Adhnan Mohammed

Defendant

Mohammed Daanyaal

Defendant

Bradley Hayes

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction Application (public Nuisance, Anti Social Behaviour) / Final Judgment on Application for Injunctions and Ancillary Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant borough-wide injunctions (including against persons unknown) to restrain car cruising and related anti-social behaviour
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for quia timet (precautionary) relief are met
  3. 3 Whether the injunctions comply with the principles for orders against persons unknown as set out by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the injunctions because the claimants demonstrated a compelling need to restrain car cruising, which constitutes public nuisance and anti-social behaviour causing real harm; criminal and other remedies are inadequate; the requirements for injunctions against persons unknown are satisfied under Supreme Court guidance; the orders are clear, limited, and proportionate; and procedural safeguards are in place.

Court Disposition

Injunctions granted as sought, with ancillary orders including powers of arrest and joinder of additional defendant.

Orders

  • Final injunctions restraining car cruising and related conduct within defined areas and times
  • Ancillary orders including powers of arrest under s 27(3), Police and Justice Act 2006 (excluding spectators)