THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Free the MBR Beagles
have, by service of a Claim Form on the relevant category of Persons Unknown, sufficiently established the Court’s jurisdiction over all of those who would have been subject to the Court’s injunction. The Claimants are not (ostensibly) seeking a contra mundum injunction. The issues I have identified are some of the practical limits of bringing civil claims against “Persons Unknown”. 76. Second, unless the Claimants can demonstrate a clear case for an injunction, in my judgment it is better to leave any alleged wrongdoing to be dealt with by the police. Officers on the ground are much better placed to make the difficult decisions as to the balancing of the competing rights (see Injunction Judgment [85] and [96]). 77. The evidence from Superintendent Sissons shows that this is precisely what the police are doing. There is no complaint from the Claimants that the police are failing in their duties or that the targeted measures taken by the police have been ineffective. Arrests are being made of some protestors, including it appears those engaged on protests at Impex, and several people have been charged. Appropriate use of bail conditions or, upon conviction, restraining orders will restrict further unlawful acts of individuals more effectively and on a targeted basis. 78. Arrests for offences under s.14 Public Order Act 1986 suggest that the police have already utilised their powers to impose conditions on public assemblies. I appreciate that the Claimants contend that, notwithstanding the efforts of the police, some people are continuing to break the law. The issue for the Claimants is that, before meaningful relief can be granted by way of civil injunction, it is necessary to identify the alleged wrongdoers so that they can be joined to the proceedings. 79. Third, an injunction in the terms of sub-paragraph (5) is ambitious. Effectively it is a claim for an injunction made by the First Claimant, in order to protect Impex from acts of alleged harassment. I accept that, under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the First Claimant may be able to establish a legal basis on which to make that claim, but it does not follow that the Court will consider it just and convenient to grant an order in those circumstances. Fundamentally, I consider that the better course, for several reasons, is for Impex to apply itself for an injunction if it wants to seek relief in respect of acts of alleged harassment (whether by named Defendant or “Persons Unknown”). (1) A claim by Impex itself would get over the difficulties that the Claimants have in satisfying the requirements of s.1(1A) Protection from Harassment Act 1997. (2) Impex would have to provide its own evidence of the alleged wrongful acts in support of any claim. (3) In respect of any application for an interim injunction, Impex would be required to provide its own cross-undertaking as to damages. (4) Insofar as Impex sought relief against any category of “Persons Unknown” it would have to apply for, and satisfy the Court that it was appropriate to grant, an order for alternative service of the Claim Form. Practically, that would require it to put forward a method of service that could reasonably be expected to bring the proceedings to the attention of all of those in the class of “Persons Unknown” against whom an injunction was sought. It may be, depending upon
427
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator