Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown and Another: QBD 20 Sep 2019

Where an interim injunction had been obtained against person unknown, service of the claim to be answered was fundamental to the principles of the judicial system. There is an important distinction between ‘a person’s general awareness of the proceedings, as a result of information they are provided, and the important step of being served with documents that makes the person aware that s/he is a party to the proceedings.’ In this instance that meant that the original claim had not been properly served and therefore no extension of the Final Order could, or should, be made.


Nicklin J


[2019] EWHC 2459 (QB), [2019] WLR(D) 520, [2020] 1 WLR 417, [2020] JPL 387


Bailii, WLRD


England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromCanada Goose UK Retail Ltd and Another v Unknown Persons CA 5-Mar-2020
‘This appeal concerns the way in which, and the extent to which, civil proceedings for injunctive relief against ‘persons unknown’ can be used to restrict public protests.’ . .
CitedLondon Borough of Enfield v Persons Unknown and Others QBD 2-Oct-2020
The council had obtained interim and final injunctions in 2017 against anticipated trespassers on its land and the order was due to expire. It now ought its extension and to amend the terms of the order.
Held: The court noted that no person . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.642135