- The requirement of accuracy when drafting an injunction against “Persons Unknown” – the appeal
The requirement of accuracy when drafting an injunction against “Persons Unknown” – the appeal
The requirement of accuracy when drafting an injunction against “Persons Unknown” – the appeal12th March 2020 - Published by Rebecca Jones
Canada Goose UK Retail Limited, James Hayton (for and on behalf of the Employees, Security Personnel and Protected Persons)
Persons Unknown, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Foundation
 EWCA Civ 303
A recent case which we reported on last year has now been heard in the Court of Appeal. This case addressed the question of the extent to which a Court will grant, and the importance of compliance with the relevant procedural steps in relation to, injunctions against Persons Unknown.
Canada Goose opened a store in London in November 2017 and has been subject to several protests concerning their products which are manufactured using animal products. The appeal was not successful.
The Court of Appeal provided useful guidance applicable to proceedings for interim relief against “Persons Unknown”:
- Identifying “Persons Unknown”
- “Persons Unknown” are people who have not been identified at the time proceedings are commenced but are capable of being identified and served with proceedings;
- If a person can be identified then they must be joined as a party to the proceedings;
- This can include people who in the future will join the protest;
- The description of “Persons Unknown” should not be too wide. In this case, the definition could apply to persons who have never been at the store or even intended to go there;
- Alternative service can only be used if this is set out in the order and covers all documents requiring to service;
- The terms of the injunction must be sufficiently clear and precise as to enable persons potentially affected to know what they must not do. The terms should therefore avoid technical and legal language;
- The interim injunction should have clear geographical and temporal limits.
A further point highlighted in the case is that a final injunction cannot be granted in a protester case against newcomers i.e. persons unknown who are not parties at the date of the final order.