Canada Goose sought an injunction against protests by ‘persons unknown’.
However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, in Canada Goose v Persons unknown who are protesters & PETA [2020] EWCA Civ 3030.
The court upheld the earlier judgment by Mr Justice Nicklin, in which Nicklin J held the claim form was not validly served, and considered the description of the unknown persons ‘too broad’ as it was capable of including protesters who might never even intend to visit the store. Nicklin J had also criticised Canada Goose for not joining any individuals to the application.
Delivering judgment, the Master of the Rolls and two Lords Justice said: ‘Canada Goose's problem is that it seeks to invoke the civil jurisdiction of the courts as a means of permanently controlling ongoing public demonstrations by a continually fluctuating body of protesters.
‘It wishes to use remedies in private litigation in effect to prevent what is sees as public disorder. Private law remedies are not well suited to such a task. As the present case shows, what are appropriate permanent controls on such demonstrations involve complex considerations of private rights, civil liberties, public expectations and local authority policies.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
