forthcoming Epsom Derby, with a wider programme of "mass trespass onto animal racing events" [White (DB/188) N19-27] [Truesdale (DB/30) §§38-41] [DB/115-118]. forthcoming Epsom Derby, with a wider programme of “ mass trespass onto animal racing events ” [White (DB/188) §§19-27] [Truesdale (DB/30) §§38-41] [DB/115-118] .
6. The Applicant knows that individuals affiliated with AR are intending to trespass on the racetrack and/or otherwise disrupt the races at the Epsom Derby, but other than R1, does not know the identities of the individuals intending or actively considering whether to do so. For this reason, the Application is brought against Persons Unknown ("Rs 2 to 8"). Unknown (“ Rs 2 to 8 ”).
B. LEGAL BACKGROUND
i. Injunctions against Persons Unknown
7. The Court of Appeal in Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 100 established that an injunction may be granted against persons unknown who are not currently in existence but will come into existence when they commit the prohibited act (§30) [AB/67]. Such persons are "Newcomers", against whom both interim and final injunctions may be ordered (Barking and Dagenham v Persons Unknown [2023] QB 295, §§7,123 [AB/157]).1 8. The Court of Appeal provided guidance on interim relief against persons unknown at §82 of Canada Goose UK Retail Limited v Persons Unknown [2020] 1 WLR 2802 [AB/79]:2 "(1) The "persons unknown" defendants in the claim form are, by definition, people who have not been identified at the time of the commencement of the proceedings. If they are known and have been identified, they must be joined as individual defendants to the proceedings. The "persons unknown" defendants must be people who have not been identified but are capable of being identified and served with the proceedings, zf necessary 1 Injunctions may also be granted against (i) anonymous defendants who are identifiable but whose names are unknown (e.g. squatters, identifiable by location if not name), and (ii) anonymous defendants who cannot be identified (e.g. hit and run drivers) (Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd (Motor Insurers' Bureau Intervening) [2019]1 WLR1471 at §13, per Lord Sumption). 2 The principles at §82 remain good law. The Court of Appeal in Barking and Dagenham (§§97-100) refused to follow parts of the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Canada Goose (§§89-92), but not this paragraph. defendants who cannot be identified (e.g. hit and run drivers) ( Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd (Motor Insurers’ Bureau Intervening) [2019] 1 WLR 1471 at §13, per Lord Sumption). The principles at §82 remain good law. The Court of Appeal in Barking and Dagenham (§§97-100) refused to follow parts of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Canada Goose ( §§89-92), but not this 7. The Court of Appeal in Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 100 act (§30) [AB/67] . Such persons are “ Newcomers ”, against whom both interim and final injunctions may be ordered ( Barking and Dagenham v Persons Unknown [2023] QB 295, §§7, 123 [AB/157] ). 1 at §82 of Canada Goose UK Retail Limited v Persons Unknown [2020] 1 WLR 2802 [AB/79] : 2 “(1) The "persons unknown" defendants in the claim form are, by definition, people who identified but are capable of being identified and served with the proceedings, if necessary 1
4g 42
3
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator