Birmingham City Council v Persons Unknown

Factual and Procedural Background

On 3 October 2016, the Court granted an injunction application by the Claimant ("Birmingham") prohibiting "street cruising" within its local government area, the City of Birmingham. The injunction forbade participation in street cruises and the promotion or organization of such events within Birmingham's boundaries. The order was limited to three years and included a power of arrest under the Police and Justice Act 2006. A detailed definition of "street cruise" and "participation" was annexed to the order.

On 30 April 2018, an application was heard to add North Warwickshire Borough Council ("NWBC") as a second Claimant, amend the Particulars of Claim, and vary the 2016 injunction to extend it to NWBC's area on the same terms. The Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to add NWBC and vary the order eighteen months after judgment and whether it should exercise discretion to do so.

The original evidence showed that street cruising caused public nuisance, including dangerous racing, criminal activity, and noise disturbance. Since the injunction, the problem has persisted, with continued applications for committal for breaches. NWBC supported its application with witness statements evidencing a significant street cruising problem in its area, particularly around border roads shared with Birmingham.

The Court noted procedural concerns about the late application to add NWBC and vary the order. The application raised questions about jurisdiction and the nature of the relief sought, as it essentially amounted to new relief for a different party.

Following the judgment, NWBC issued fresh proceedings and applied for injunctions in its own right, which the Court indicated it would grant.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to add NWBC as a Claimant and vary a final injunction order eighteen months after judgment.
2. Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to add NWBC and vary the 2016 injunction to extend its geographical scope.
3. The legal basis and limits of varying injunctions post-judgment, particularly when involving new parties and new relief.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (NWBC and Supporting Counsel)

• The injunction granted in 2016 was not intended to be final and unchangeable but to have continuing effect, allowing for variation during its lifetime.
• There are pragmatic reasons for varying the existing order rather than issuing a fresh injunction, including simplifying enforcement over cross-border roads.
• Had NWBC joined before judgment, the Court likely would have granted the injunction covering its area.
• The variation would not prejudice any defendants because the order would only take effect after publicising it similarly to the 2016 order, and defendants maintain the right to apply to vary or discharge it.
• Reference was made to the Harrods case to support that injunctions can be varied to reflect changed circumstances and that the Court can extend the terms of an injunction during its lifetime.

Respondent's Arguments (Court's Concerns as Expressed by HHJ Worster)

• The application to add NWBC and vary the order was made long after judgment, raising concerns about finality and jurisdiction.
• The variation sought is not a mere adjustment of terms but the granting of new relief for a new party, which is legally distinct from the original proceedings.
• Final orders should not be lightly set aside or extended to provide "rolling" relief.
• The appropriate course is for NWBC to issue fresh proceedings rather than vary the existing order.
• Although the underlying case for an injunction is meritorious, the Court should resist extending the existing order and instead allow NWBC to pursue a separate claim.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by reviewing the statutory powers underpinning the injunction, including local authorities' powers under the Local Government Act 1972, Highways Act 1980, Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Localism Act 2011, and the Senior Courts Act 1981. It acknowledged the continuing public nuisance caused by street cruising and the merits of NWBC's case.

However, the Court identified three principal concerns: the timing of the application (eighteen months post-judgment), the nature of the relief sought (new relief for a new party rather than a mere variation), and the finality of orders post-judgment. The Court noted that while injunctions may be varied to reflect changed circumstances, such variations typically involve adjustments within the scope of the original parties and relief.

Adding NWBC as a Claimant and extending the injunction to its area effectively constitutes new relief. The Court emphasized that final orders are not to be lightly varied or extended to provide "rolling" relief and that procedural rules require new claims to be brought in fresh proceedings.

The Court acknowledged the practical appeal of a single order covering cross-border roads but concluded that this did not justify overriding the procedural and jurisdictional principles. It was noted that the absence of prejudice to defendants and the existence of mechanisms to challenge the order did not outweigh the need for procedural propriety.

Ultimately, the Court exercised its discretion against granting the application, directing NWBC to pursue fresh proceedings for an injunction covering its area, which the Court indicated it would grant.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the application to add NWBC as a Claimant and to vary the 2016 injunction to extend its geographical scope was refused.

The Court reasoned that jurisdiction to vary a final order post-judgment does not extend to granting new relief for a new party. The principle of finality in judgments and orders was paramount, and claims should be brought by fresh proceedings where appropriate. The practical benefits of a single order do not outweigh these legal and procedural considerations.

The direct consequence is that NWBC must issue fresh proceedings to obtain an injunction for its area. This decision does not set new precedent but reinforces the procedural boundaries governing variation of injunctions and joinder of parties post-judgment.