Where there was a clear case for an injunction, any difficulty envisaged in enforcing that injunction was not a ground for refusing it.Claimants' ('C') application for an injunction restraining persons from entering or remaining without C's consent on any named incinerator sites in connection with the "Global Day of Action Against Incinerators" or any similar event on or around 14 July 2003. C were companies within the Onyx Environmental Group and owned and operated certain waste incineration sites. Environmental protestors had at certain times invaded those sites. C's evidence was that such incursion lead to the plants being shut down causing considerable loss and the protestors activities lead to danger to themselves and others. Information from the internet and other publications indicated that 14 July 2003 was the next date designated for such activity.HELD: (1) It was clear damages were an inadequate remedy and that if one of the plants was invaded C would suffer substantial and irrevocable damage. (2) C was unable to name any of the protestors who might be involved. However as enunciated in Bloomsbury Publishing v News Group Newspapers Ltd (2003) EWHC 1205 (Ch), under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 SI 1998/3132 there was no requirement that a defendant had to be named. The overriding objective and the obligations cast on the court were inconsistent with undue reliance on form over substance. The general power of dispensation where there had been a procedural error conferred by CPR 3.10 was incompatible with a conclusion that the joinder of a defendant by description rather than by name was for that reason alone impermissible. (3) C's description of the persons unknown on the draft order was wrong as it identified such persons as trespassers, which involved that person reaching some legal conclusion, and referred to "intent", which was undesirable as it was subjective and susceptible to change. Accordingly the description of the defendants would be changed as above. (4) Where it was apparent that criminal law and its remedies were inadequate, then that civil remedies might not be any better was not a ground for refusing an injunction. Further, where there was a clear case for an injunction the court should not oppose it if it envisaged difficulty in enforcement.Injunction granted.
 EWHC 1738 (Ch)