THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- McGivern
8. By an Application Notice filed on 11 August 2021, the Claimants sought, without notice, an order for alternative service of the Claim Form on the Tenth Defendant “Persons Unknown”. On 12 August 2021, Ellenbogen J granted an order in the following terms:
“Pursuant to CPR Part 6.14, 6.15, 6.26 and 6.27 the Claimants have permission to serve the Tenth Defendant, Persons Unknown, by the following alternative forms of service: 3.1 Affixing copies (as opposed to originals) of the Claim Form, the Injunction Application Notice, draft Injunction Order, and this Order permitting alternative service, in a transparent envelope on the gates of the First and Third Claimants’ Land and in a prominent position on the grass verge at the front of First and Third Claimants’ Land. 3.2 The documents shall be accompanied by a cover letter in the form set out in Annexure 2, explaining to Persons Unknown that they can access copies of: 3.2.1 The Response Pack; 3.2.2Evidence in support of the Alternative Service and Injunction Applications; and 3.2.3 The skeleton argument and note of the hearing of the Alternative Service Application, at the dedicated share file website at [Dropbox link given]: 3.3 The deemed date of service for the documents referred to in paragraphs 3 to 3.2.3 above shall be two working days after service is completed in accordance with paragraphs 3 to 3.2.3 above.”
9. In granting that alternative service order as against the Tenth Defendant Persons Unknown, the Judge would have been satisfied, on the evidence, that the proposed method of alternative service – detailed in Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.2 – could “ reasonably be expected to bring the proceedings to the attention of the defendant ”: Cameron -v- Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2019] 1 WLR 1471 [21]. As the “Persons Unknowns” were, at that stage, defined by reference to those protesting within a marked area, the alternative service method proposed was likely to be effective in bringing the proceedings to the attention of the protesters in that area. 10. The alternative service order, however, did not comply with the mandatory requirement, under CPR 6.15(4)(c), that the order must specify the period for (i) filing an acknowledgment of service; (ii) filing an admission; or (iii) filing a defence. I will return below to the potential implications of this (see [74] below). 11. An interim injunction was granted on 20 August 2021 against all the Defendants (see Injunction Judgment [34]-[37]). The terms of the injunction were reconsidered at a hearing on 4 October 2021 and varied, following the handing down of the Injunction Judgment. The claim brought against the representative First and Second Defendants was stayed (Injunction Judgment: [52]-[67]). The original Tenth Defendant “Persons Unknown” was replaced by three new categories of “Persons Unknown” with the
435
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator