Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd & Anor v Unknown Persons

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the use of civil proceedings for injunctive relief against "persons unknown" to restrict public protests. The first appellant, Company A UK, is the UK trading arm of an international retail clothing company selling products containing animal fur and down. In November 2017, Company A UK opened a store at [Number] Main Street, The City. The second appellant is the store manager. The appellants sought injunctive relief and damages for what they described as a campaign of harassment, trespass, and/or nuisance against them.

The first respondents ("Unknown Persons respondents") were described as persons unknown protesting against the manufacture and sale of animal product clothing at the store. The second respondent is Company B, an animal rights charity, which was added as a defendant during proceedings.

The appeal arises from an order of Judge [Last Name] dated 20 September 2019, dismissing the appellants' application for summary judgment for injunctive relief and discharging interim injunctions originally granted in late 2017 and continued with variations thereafter.

From before the store's opening, protests occurred, mostly small and peaceful, organized by Company B and other activists, with occasional unlawful acts including vandalism and large-scale protests disrupting the store's operation. Police presence and arrests occurred during some protests.

Company A UK commenced proceedings against the Unknown Persons respondents on 29 November 2017, seeking an injunction to restrain various acts including assault, harassment, obstruction, and use of loudhailers within defined exclusion zones around the store. Interim injunctions were granted without notice, with detailed exclusion zones and service provisions allowing alternative service by email to specified activist email addresses.

Company B was joined as a defendant in December 2017 and challenged parts of the injunction on grounds of disproportionate interference with rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The injunction was varied to allow limited protest activity and regulated use of loudhailers.

Company A UK applied for summary judgment for a final injunction in late 2018; only Company A UK was represented at the hearing. The judge dismissed the application in September 2019, identifying defects including improper service of proceedings, overly broad definitions of respondents, and injunction terms capturing lawful conduct.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the claim form was validly served on the Unknown Persons respondents and Company B.
2. The permissibility of defining and granting injunctive relief against "persons unknown" in protester cases.
3. The appropriateness and scope of interim and final injunctions restricting protest activities, including the legality of exclusion zones and restrictions on lawful conduct.
4. The correct legal approach to summary judgment applications for such injunctions.
5. Whether the evidence supported granting summary judgment and injunctions in the circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The order for alternative service by email should be corrected or interpreted to include service of the claim form and particulars of claim, not just the injunction order.
• The steps taken to email the claim form and particulars to activist email addresses constituted good alternative service under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
• Alternatively, the court should dispense with service of the claim form on the Unknown Persons respondents under CPR provisions.
• The description of the Unknown Persons respondents was appropriate and should not be restricted to only those identified protesters.
• The injunction sought was necessary to protect the appellants from harassment, trespass, and nuisance caused by protesters.
• The judge erred in focusing solely on individual evidence of wrongdoing and in requiring differentiation among protesters for the purposes of the injunction.

Respondents' Arguments

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

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by analyzing the procedural issue of service. It held that the claim form had not been validly served on the Unknown Persons respondents because the order permitting alternative service applied only to the injunction order itself, not the claim form or particulars of claim. The appellants' argument that the order should be corrected under the slip rule or inherent jurisdiction was rejected because there was no evidence the judge who made the order had considered alternative service of the claim form. The court emphasized the fundamental principle that service is essential to confer jurisdiction and that alternative service must be reasonably likely to bring proceedings to the defendant's attention.

The court found that emailing activist addresses was insufficient to bring notice to the broad class of Unknown Persons respondents, especially as the legal status of some recipients was unclear and there was no obligation to disseminate the information further. The court also rejected the application to dispense with service under CPR 6.16, noting that the appellants had not sought or obtained orders for effective alternative service methods such as posting notices at the premises or on social media.

On the merits, the court reviewed the legal framework for injunctions against "persons unknown," drawing heavily on Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions. It explained that injunctions against unknown defendants fall into categories depending on whether defendants are identifiable but unnamed (Category 1) or completely unidentifiable (Category 2). It also recognized a third category of "Newcomers"—future protesters not yet in existence or identified.

The court applied the "Ineos requirements" for granting injunctions against unknown persons, which include a real and imminent risk of tortious conduct, the impossibility of naming defendants, effective notice provisions, precision and clarity of injunction terms, and clear geographic and temporal limits. It qualified the requirement that injunctions must not prohibit lawful conduct absolutely, holding that lawful conduct may be restricted if no other proportionate means exist to protect the claimant's rights.

The court found the claim form and interim injunctions defective because the description of Unknown Persons respondents was overly broad, potentially including peaceful protesters with no connection to the store, and the injunction terms restricted lawful conduct without sufficient justification. The injunctions also lacked adequate alternative service provisions likely to reach the Unknown Persons.

Regarding final injunctions, the court held that such relief cannot bind unknown future protesters who have not been served or joined as parties, except in rare exceptional cases not applicable here. The appellants' proposed final injunction was not limited to identifiable persons who had committed unlawful acts and thus was impermissible.

The court noted the difficulty in using private law remedies to control ongoing public protests involving fluctuating groups and emphasized that public law mechanisms are better suited to such regulation.

Finally, the court dismissed the appeal on all grounds, affirming the refusal of summary judgment and discharge of the interim injunctions.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The direct effect of this decision is that the appellants' application for summary judgment and a final injunction against the Unknown Persons respondents and Company B is refused, and the interim injunctions previously granted are discharged. The court confirmed that injunctions against "persons unknown" must comply with strict procedural and substantive requirements, including proper service, precise definitions, and proportionality regarding restrictions on lawful protest activities. No new precedent was established beyond the application and qualification of existing authorities. The decision underscores the challenges of using private civil litigation to regulate public protests and highlights the importance of public law mechanisms for such matters.