THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Free the MBR Beagles
the terms of the relief sought against the relevant category of Persons Unknown, that the Court would be satisfied that notices posted around the Impex site would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements for an order for alternative service. In the complicated area of “Persons Unknown” injunctions, better justice is likely to be achieved in litigation between the actual claimant that is seeking protection than a claim brought by a proxy on its behalf. 80. For these reasons, the Claimants’ application to vary the interim injunction to add sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) is refused. F: Is Gillian McGivern a Defendant to the proceedings? 81. A point that arose at the hearing on 7 October 2022 was whether Ms McGivern is now a defendant to the proceedings. 82. The Claimants brought a contempt application against Ms McGivern. I dismissed it after a 2-day hearing on 22 July 2022. The judgment giving my reasons for dismissing the contempt application was handed down on 2 August 2022 ([2022] EWHC 2072 (QB)) (“the Contempt Judgment”). 83. I raised the status of Ms McGivern at the hearing on 7 October 2022. As part of their Contempt Application, the Claimants had contended that, by operation of the Gammell principle, Ms McGivern had become bound by the interim injunction order because she had done acts that brought her within the category of “Persons Unknown” (see [64]-[66] Contempt Judgment). I had asked, at the hearing of the Contempt Application, whether the Claimants intended to bring a claim against Ms McGivern but was not given an answer (see [71] Contempt Judgment). At the hearing of 7 October 2022, I made clear that if Ms McGivern was a defendant to the claim – by operation of the Gammell principle – then the Claimants had a choice. Either they had to pursue a claim against her – which would mean applying further to amend their Particulars of Claim to set out the claim against her – or they had to discontinue the claim against her. 84. Ms Bolton argued that Ms McGivern has not become a defendant to the claim on two bases. First, she contended that the Gammell principle operates only to make Ms McGivern liable to comply with the interim injunction, it does not make her a defendant. It would be for the Claimants to make an application to join her as a defendant and they have not made such an application. Second, in the Contempt Judgment, I found that the Claimants had failed to comply with the terms of the alternative service order and so Ms McGivern did not have notice of the injunction order: see [78] Contempt Judgment. 85. I reject Ms Bolton’s first submission. The operation of the Gammell principle means that – providing there has been compliance with the terms of the alternative service order – a person who does an act that brings him/her within the definition of a “Persons Unknown” defendant in civil proceedings becomes a defendant to those proceedings. No further step is required: see South Cambridgeshire DC -v- Gammell [2006] 1 WLR 658 [32]. As I noted in the Contempt Judgment [71]:
428
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator