contra mundum

Injunctions are usually made against named individuals, that is, in personam. When injunctions made contra mundum, they are made against the entire world. These are unusual orders, and are infrequently granted by UK Courts.

By doing so, it would be a contempt of court of any person falling within the named class of persons described in the order to disobey the injunction.

Requirements

Usually, in order to obtain interim relief, including interim injunctions:

1. the claimant must persuade the court that it has a good arguable case against the defendant. The more extensive the relief sought by the claimant, the better the arguable case needs to be.
2. the draft order must be in terms which clearly state what the defendant must and must not do.
3. the claimant must identify the persons against whom the order is sought. Orders will only be effective against persons who are aware of the terms of the order.

Injunctions made contra mundum requires a relaxation of the third requirement by the Court. That said, a person is able to be identified by reference to not only their name, but a photograph, an alias and other more exotic means (such as a fingerprint).

Example of an Injunction Contra Mundum

The court also has power to make orders against persons unknown: Bloomsbury Publishing Group Limited and Rowling v Newsgroup Newspapers Limited [2003].

In that case, copies of a forthcoming book had been stolen. The book had been printed in extreme secrecy and security to prevent dissemination of the book prior to the launch date. A person who was unwilling to divulge their name had made offers to produce copies of each chapter of the book of £25,000 to well-known English newspapers. As matters stood at the time of the hearing, the Court was not aware, not any of the parties to the litigation of the identity of the person making the offers. The offers were made by telephone from a public telephone booth.

The injunction was ordered to prevent dissemination of copies of the book.

Injunctions: Approach of the Court

Had the court been aware of the identity of the person who had acquired the copy of the book, "[...] the court would, without hesitation, grant the without notice relief which the claimants seek not only to preserve confidentiality, but also to prevent infringement of copyright and the conversion of stolen property".

That injunction would have been effective against (1) the defendant (Newsgroup Newspapers Limited), and (2) any other person who had been informed of the terms of the injunction, and assisted or tried to assist in the breach of its terms.

It is usually a requirement for Injunctions to name the persons to whom it applies. In this case, it was not possible, because the identity of the person was not known. The application for injunctive relief was therefore (in US language) a "John Doe" injunction made against persons unknown.

Other Intellectual Property Cases

In EMI Records v Kudhail (1985), the English High Court ordered that injunctions be made to prevent accomplices in a conspiracy or common design to infringe copyright, where one or more of the participants was unknown. This is likely to be extended to threatened infringements of all forms of intellectual property rights in appropriate cases.

In Tony Blain Pty Ltd v Splain (1994), the High Court of New Zealand said:

The fact that persons cannot be identified at this stage of the proceedings is no bar to relief against persons who may be identified at a relevant time. It is not the name but the identity and identification of the infringing persons which is relevant. The identity may not be immediately established, but persons infringing will be identified by their act of infringements. Jane Doe and John Doe will be known by their works.