Restricting Injunctive Relief Against 'Persons Unknown' in Protester Cases: Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd & Anor v Unknown Persons [2020] EWCA Civ 303

Introduction

The case of Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd & Anor v. Unknown Persons ([2020] EWCA Civ 303) adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) addresses critical issues surrounding the use of civil injunctions against unidentified protesters. The appellants, Canada Goose Retail Limited UK and the store manager, sought injunctive relief and damages against anonymous individuals described as "persons unknown" who were protesting the company's use of animal products in their clothing. The primary legal questions revolved around the proper service of legal documents on unidentified parties and the appropriateness of broad injunctions limiting protests.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal against the High Court's decision to dismiss Canada Goose's application for summary judgment. The original injunctions against "persons unknown" were discharged due to improper service of claim forms and overbroad terms that infringed on fundamental rights of protest. The Court upheld the High Court's stance, emphasizing the necessity of precise identification for lawful injunctive relief and the protection of civil liberties under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases that shaped the legal landscape for injunctions against anonymous defendants:

Cameron v. Liverpool Insurance Co Ltd [2019] UKSC 6: Established the necessity of proper service and the fundamental principle that a person cannot be subjected to court jurisdiction without adequate notice.
Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown [2019] EWCA Civ 515: Explored the distinction between identifiable and non-identifiable anonymous defendants and set procedural guidelines for granting injunctions against "persons unknown."
Cuadrilla Bowland Limited v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9: Further refined the requirements for injunctions against anonymous protesters, particularly emphasizing the clarity and precision needed in the scope of such orders.
South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell [2005] EWCA Civ 1429: Highlighted the court's ability to address movements post-injunction through effective service methods.
Hubbard v Pitt [1976] 1 QB 142 and Burris v Azadani [1995] 1 WLR 1372: Demonstrated that injunctions could restrict lawful conduct to protect legitimate interests, provided they are not excessively broad.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal focused on two main aspects:

Service of Proceedings: The court underscored that Canada Goose failed to properly serve the claim forms on the "persons unknown." The methods employed, primarily emailing to organizational addresses (Surge and PETA), were deemed ineffective in notifying the actual protesters.
Scope of Injunctions: The injunctions were criticized for being overly broad, affecting individuals who might not engage in any unlawful activity. The terms were not sufficiently clear or precise, leading to potential restrictions on lawful protest activities.

The Court reinforced the principles from precedents, particularly highlighting the balance between protecting business interests and upholding fundamental rights to free expression and assembly. The necessity for injunctions to be narrowly tailored to specific unlawful conduct was emphasized.

Impact

This judgment sets a stringent precedent for businesses seeking injunctive relief against anonymous protesters. It clarifies the stringent requirements for proper service and the necessity for precise, justified terms in injunctions. Future cases will likely reference this judgment to ensure that any injunctive measures against unidentified groups do not infringe upon civil liberties and are procedurally sound.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Interim vs. Final Injunctions

Interim Injunction: A temporary court order granted to maintain the status quo until a final decision is made. In this case, Canada Goose sought an interim injunction to prevent ongoing protests.

Final Injunction: A permanent court order that resolves the legal dispute conclusively. Canada Goose aimed for a final injunction to permanently restrict protests.

CPR 6.5 and CPR 6.15

CPR 6.5: Refers to the Civil Procedure Rules governing the service of legal documents. Proper service is critical to ensure defendants are aware of the proceedings.

CPR 6.15: Provides guidelines for alternative methods of service when traditional methods are ineffective. However, the court found that Canada Goose's alternative service methods were inadequate.

Freedom of Expression and Assembly

Under the ECHR, individuals have the right to freely express themselves and assemble peacefully. Any court order restricting these rights must be proportionate and justified based on the necessity to protect legitimate interests.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd & Anor v Unknown Persons significantly tightens the criteria for granting injunctive relief against anonymous protesters. By emphasizing the importance of proper service and the need for narrowly tailored injunctions, the judgment safeguards civil liberties while recognizing legitimate business concerns. This case serves as a crucial reference for future litigation involving collective or unidentified defendants, ensuring that such legal actions do not unjustly impede fundamental rights.

The judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in balancing competing interests, ensuring that legal remedies are applied judiciously and in a manner that respects individual freedoms. Businesses contemplating similar legal actions must now approach with meticulous attention to procedural correctness and the proportionality of their requests.