Injunctive relief against persons unknown requires compelling justification, the probability that a tort or breach of public law which will cause harm is to be committed and a real and imminent threat.
The court has considered this principle dismissing a claim for injunctive relief in The Office Group Properties Ltd v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1438 (KB).
The claimant held the leasehold title to the commercial premises at Tintagel House, the many occupiers of which included the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
For five days ending on 30 May 2025 Tintagel House was the location for protest against the EHRC by individuals associated with a group called “Trans Kids Deserve Better” who opposed the organisation’s stance following the decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 (16 April 2025).
An unauthorised encampment was set up outside and in front of Tintagel House on a raised and covered terrace area within the claimants’ leasehold title as part of the protest. The group encouraged people to join the protest through posts on its Instagram account.
On 30 May 2025 the claimants sought an order for possession of Tintagel House and injunctive relief to restrain trespassory protest. The protesters departed the building before the proceedings were served.
The claimants abandoned their claim for possession but continued to seek an injunction to restrain the defendants from entering, occupying or remaining on all or any part of Tintagel House “for the purposes of protest” on the basis that the protesters would return.
A court may grant injunctive relief where just and convenient to do so under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. However, against persons unknown there must be compelling justification for the order sought, a strong probability that a tort or breach of public law which will cause real harm is to be committed and a real and imminent threat Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v London Gypsies and Travellers & Ors [2023] UKSC 47.
The application failed because the claimants’ evidence did not come close to demonstrating a compelling justification for the order. While there was a possibility that a trespassory protest would take place at Tintagel House at some point there was no strong probability that it would recur let alone that it would recur imminently. There was no ongoing tort for the court to consider restraining.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant
