Clarkson Plc v Person Or Persons Unknown

Factual and Procedural Background

This case involves a claim brought by Plaintiff, a substantial public company operating in the shipping business headquartered in The City, against one or more unknown individuals (Defendant(s)) who gained unauthorized access to Plaintiff's IT systems and obtained a considerable quantity of information. The Defendant(s) threatened to publicize this information unless a very substantial sum was paid, constituting an apparent case of blackmail.

Plaintiff obtained an interim injunction at a hearing before Judge A on 27 November 2017. The matter returned before Judge B on 14 December 2017, who continued the interim relief and renewed various derogations from open justice previously granted. Directions were given for service and response, including a deadline of 11 January 2018 for any Defence and a deadline of 22 February 2018 for Plaintiff to apply for default or summary judgment if no Defence was filed.

The Defendant(s) did not file any Defence or acknowledgment of service. On 22 February 2018, Plaintiff applied for default judgment and a final injunction prohibiting the Defendant(s) from disclosing or using the confidential information. The application was dealt with on the papers without a hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court can grant a final injunction against Defendant(s) unknown, prohibiting disclosure or use of confidential information, on an application dealt with without a hearing.
2. Whether default judgment can be entered pursuant to CPR 12.3(1) against Defendant(s) unknown who have not responded to the claim.
3. Whether the court should continue derogations from the open justice principle in respect of confidential information and related documents.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
PJS v News Group Newspapers Limited [2016] EWHC 2770 (QB)	Authority for dealing with applications on the papers by consent; balancing open justice with confidentiality and the use of public judgments to explain derogations.	Applied to justify dealing with the application without a hearing, while maintaining open justice by issuing a public judgment explaining the order and its basis.
Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417	Fundamental principle of open justice requiring hearings and judgments to be public.	Referenced to underline the importance of open justice and the exceptional nature of derogations from it.
JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 42; [2011] 1 WLR 1645	Limits on parties’ ability to consent to derogations from open justice as such derogations affect public rights under Article 10.	Used to support the approach that the court must carefully consider derogations from open justice and cannot rely solely on parties’ consent.
Brett Wilson LLP v Person(s) Unknown [2015] EWHC 2628 (QB); [2016] 4 WLR 69	Jurisdiction and approach to default judgment and injunctive relief against persons unknown.	Adopted as the guiding approach for granting default judgment and substantive relief without evidence, based on the claimant’s unchallenged particulars of claim.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court granted the application for default judgment and a final injunction against Defendant(s) unknown who had failed to engage in the proceedings. The court exercised its discretion to deal with the application on the papers without a hearing, relying on CPR 23.8 and the precedent set in PJS v News Group Newspapers Limited, which permits such procedure provided open justice is respected through a public judgment explaining the order and its basis.

The court found that the open justice principle and Article 6 rights could be properly respected without a hearing, especially since the Defendant(s) had not participated and the case had already been subject to two public hearings with public judgments. The court emphasized that the method chosen made the information more publicly accessible than a hearing would, as the judgment would be published on a public website.

The court was satisfied that the Plaintiff had taken all reasonable steps to notify the Defendant(s), that the Defendant(s) likely wished to remain anonymous to avoid identification as perpetrators of blackmail, and that the conditions for default judgment under CPR 12.3(1) were met.

Substantively, the court accepted the Plaintiff’s unchallenged particulars of claim as showing a clear need to restrain the threatened disclosures and granted the final injunction in terms consistent with the interim order. The court also continued the derogations from open justice restricting access to confidential documents and upheld the protective orders for hearing papers, finding them justified on the facts.

Finally, the court granted the Plaintiff’s application for a costs order against the Defendant(s).

Holding and Implications

The court granted default judgment and a final injunction against the Defendant(s) unknown.

The final injunction prohibits the Defendant(s) from communicating, disclosing, or using the confidential information obtained unlawfully. The court continued existing derogations from open justice concerning confidential documents and hearing materials. The order was made without a hearing but accompanied by a public judgment to respect open justice and Convention rights.

The direct effect is that Plaintiff obtains substantive relief to protect its confidential information and prevent blackmail, while the Defendant(s) remain unidentified and have not engaged with the proceedings. No new legal precedent was established; the decision follows established principles regarding default judgment against unknown defendants and managing open justice in sensitive cases.