In the recent case of Pickett v Balkind, the court refused to grant an injunction to restrain the defendant from using a letter which was mistakenly disclosed in unredacted form and which subsequently called into question an expert’s independence.
REUTERS | Fabrizio Bensch
REUTERS | Carlos Jasso
Claimant practitioners will give a warm reception to a decision providing clarity and interpretation to what is meant by an agreement for costs to be “subject to detailed assessment”.
The Court of Appeal, in Doyle v M&D Foundations & Building Services Ltd, has ruled that no ambiguity exists where there is a clear agreed court order requiring the payment of costs “subject to detailed assessment if not agreed”.
REUTERS | Carlos Barria
October 17, 2022
Injunctions against “Persons Unknown”: uncertain territory
The past few years have seen a significant increase in cases where claimants commence an action and obtain an injunction against “Persons Unknown”, who are defined by reference to their actions or role in respect of the alleged conduct.
Such orders can be extremely useful to claimants, allowing them to enlist the assistance of the court despite being unable to identify the intended defendants by name, or even where they have no knowledge of who the appropriate defendants might be.
However, the procedure does throw up a number of novel issues and challenges, and it is likely that these will continue to crystallise as such orders become more common.
A recent High Court decision has highlighted a number of such issues arising from the fact that these orders have the potential to catch ‘newcomers’ – people who did not fall within the defined category of “Persons Unknown” at the time the injunction was made but are subsequently brought within the definition as a result of some later conduct or event (MBR Acres Ltd and others v McGivern).
