KB-2024-004175 - [2025] EWHC 2050 (KB)

Each of the Named Defendants was served with the Order of Tipples J or Murray J as applicable to their cases. Those Orders listed this hearing on their face and the other service provisions of each of those orders have been complied with. The applicable certificates of service were produced in the procedural bundle prepared by the Claimant for the hearing.

The Claimant drew my attention to the fact that four bundles had been sent to the last known address of the fourth Named Defendant (Najam Shah) but had been returned unopened with an indication that he was no longer at that address. I am nonetheless satisfied that he has been properly served in accordance with the terms of the earlier Orders.

The Persons Unknown Defendants have been served with notice of this hearing in accordance with the service provisions of the earlier Orders of Murray J and Tipples J and the Certificates of Service were also before me in the Claimant’s procedural bundle. I am entirely satisfied that by discharging the comprehensive notification requirements in the Orders of Tipples J and Murray J the Claimant has taken all reasonable steps to draw its application to the attention of Persons Unknown in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v London Gypsies and Travellers & Ors [2024] AC 983.