Lara Stone and Another v "wxy" (Person or Persons Unknown Responsible for Pursuing and/or Taking Photographs of the Claimants Outside Their Home and in Other Places During March to May 2010)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Eady |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 3184 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ10X01847 |
| Date | 12 November 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 3184 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Case No: HQ10X01847
David Sherborne (instructed by Schillings) for the Claimants
Tim Lawson-Cruttenden (Solicitor Advocate instructed by Lawson-Cruttenden & Co) for the Intended Second Defendant
Hearing date: 30 October 2012
On 30 October 2012, I heard an application made by Mr Sherborne on behalf of the Claimants that Mr Jani Jance, who is a freelance photographer, should be joined in their existing proceedings (Claim No HQ10X01847) as a defendant. Those proceedings were launched in May 2010 with the primary objective of preventing harassment of the Claimants at around the time of their wedding, due to take place on 16 May of that year, although the only Defendant(s) who could be made the subject of a claim at that time had to be characterised as "WXY" (a person or persons unknown responsible for pursuing and/or taking photographs of the Claimants outside their home and in other places during March to May 2010). At that stage, and apparently for some time thereafter, the Claimants were unable to identify any of the paparazzi by whom it was alleged they were then being pursued.
It is now known that Mr Jance had at least a limited role at that time. He admits that he attended on the instructions of his agency on one occasion, on 13 May 2010, when he took two or three photographs of the Claimants. According to his evidence, however, they were not of sufficient quality or interest for him to be able to make any use of them. He does not accept, on the other hand, that he has either then or subsequently harassed the Claimants or done anything otherwise illegal.
I made an interim order against WXY on 14 May 2010 to give the Claimants some measure of protection during the period when there was particular media interest in them. The Claimants were at least able to serve the order on some of the well known paparazzi agencies and, thereafter, either because of the order itself or because interest in the couple may have tailed off to some extent, it seemed that the harassment which troubled them at that time largely abated.
It is recognised, in general terms, that it is inappropriate for a claimant to seek interim relief and then to sit back and take no further step in the proceedings in question, treating the interim injunction as affording the same benefits as a permanent order. It is fair to acknowledge, however, that where the offenders are "persons unknown" it will be very often impossible to make much progress in the litigation because there is no one available against whom to pursue the claim by serving particulars of claim. While it is true that the court can grant an order for what used to be called "substituted service", there would remain the problem that the "persons unknown" would not engage with the proceedings by way of serving a defence or giving disclosure of documents. It is perhaps not surprising that some claimants decide to incur no further expense, in such circumstances, by way of pursuing an action which can achieve no further benefits.
Since the Claimants were, some time ago, able to identify Mr Jance (the Respondent) as one of the original "pursuers" (as they would put it), what is now sought is to introduce him into the litigation as an individual defendant and then bring the proceedings to a close by way of converting the existing order into a permanent injunction. That course was opposed by Mr Lawson-Cruttenden on Mr Jance's behalf for a variety of reasons.
At least, it seems to me, I should avoid allowing the Claimants to join any individual as a defendant simply because he is the only person they can identify, on the basis that they wish to use him as a convenient "peg" by means of which they can dispose of the litigation. There must be a substantive reason for doing so. Of course, the Claimants do not accept this as a fair characterisation of what they now hope to achieve. They regard Mr Jance as someone who has committed tortious conduct in the past, by way of harassment, and as someone who may go on doing so in the future unless restrained by permanent injunction. He has provided detailed evidence, giving what purports to be a full and frank account of his interaction with the Claimants over the period which has elapsed since his involvement on 13 May 2010. Not only does he deny having harassed either of the Claimants in the past; he also states that he has no intention of pestering them in the future. He claims that he has no wish to do anything unlawful, although he is no doubt reserving the right to take paparazzi photographs of them in public places in so far as it is lawful to do so. I recognise, of course, that his evidence has not been tested and that I must not take it at face value at this stage.
Mr Sherborne relies upon the provisions of the CPR which govern the joinder of a party as a defendant to existing proceedings and, specifically, those which apply where (as here) the relevant limitation period has not expired.
It is provided in CPR 19.2(2) that it must be shown to be desirable to add the new party so that the court can resolve all the matters in dispute in the proceedings; or where there is an issue involving the new party and an existing party which is connected to the matters in dispute in the proceedings, and it is desirable to add the new party so that the court can resolve that issue.
Mr Sherborne emphasises the use of the word "desirable" and contrasts it with the necessity test applicable where the limitation period has expired. Mr Lawson-Cruttenden, however, disputes even the desirability of joining his client and takes a number of points. Perhaps the most fundamental is the argument that, since the original proceedings progressed no further than the issue of a claim form, there are no statements of case from which to identify any outstanding "matters in dispute". There being no defence, there is nothing which has so far been put in issue. In those circumstances, he argues, the court cannot be satisfied as to what may or may not be desirable for the purpose of resolving "all the matters in dispute". That is not mere sophistry, since after such a long delay it is genuinely not easy to identify a live issue calling for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bianca Cameron (Claimant/Appellant) v Naveed Hussain (First Defendant) Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd (Second Defendant/Respondent)
...of the court's power to do so and despite obvious difficulties of enforcement. In this context he relied upon inter alia: Stone v WXY [2012] EWHC 3184 (QB), [14], where a claim for both an injunction and damages against unknown press photographers was made; Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknow......
-
Brett Wilson Llp v Person(s) Unknown, Responsible for the Operation and Publication of the Website www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com (Defendant(s)
...copies of a book prior to its official publication date (as in the Bloomsbury case), or harassment (as in Stone & Williams v "WXY" [2012] EWHC 3184 (QB), and Kerner v WX [2015] EWHC 128 (QB)). In each of the last two cases the defendants were described as "Persons Unknown responsible for pu......
-
Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd &Ors v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and Others
...unknown responsible for pursuing and/or taking photographs of the Claimants outside their home and in other places during March 2010) [2012] EWHC 3184 (QB). 18 There has also been a history of injunctive relief being granted in the terms sought here in the various actions brought involving ......