Jockey Club v Persons unknown
SIR ANTHONY MANN Approved Judgment
i) Any applicant for an injunction against newcomers must satisfy the court by detailed evidence that there is a compelling justification for the order sought. There must be a strong possibility that a tort is to be committed and that that will cause real harm. The threat must be real and imminent. See paragraphs 188 and 218. “Imminent” in this context means “not premature” – Hooper v Rogers [1975] Ch 43 at 49E.
ii) The applicant must show that all reasonable alternatives to an injunction have been exhausted, including negotiation – paragraph 189.
iii) It must be demonstrated that the claimant has taken all other appropriate steps to control the wrong complained of – paragraph 189.
iv) If byelaws are available to control the behaviour complained of then consideration must be given to them as a relevant means of control in place of an injunction. However, the court seemed to consider that in an appropriate case it should be recognised that byelaws may not be an adequate means of control. See paragraphs 216 and 217. v) There is a vital duty of full disclosure on the applicant, extendi ng to “full disclosure of all facts, matters and arguments of which, after reasonable research, it is aware or could with reasonable diligence ascertain and which might affect the decision of the court whether to grant, maintain or discharge the order in issue, or the terms of the order it is prepared to make or maintain. This is a continuing obligation on any local authority seeking or securing such an order, and it is one it must fulfil having regard to the one-sided nature of the application and the substance of the relief sought. Where relevant information is discovered after the making of the order the local authority may have to put the matter back before the court on a further application.” – paragraph 219. Although this is couched in terms of the lo cal authority’s obligations, that is because that was the party seeking the injunction in that case. In my view it plainly applies to any claimant seeking a newcomer injunction. It is a duty derived from normal without notice applications, of which a claim against newcomers is, by definition, one. vi) The court made it clear that the evidence must therefore err on the side of caution, and the court, not the applicant should be the judge of relevance – paragraph 220.
vii) “The actual or intended respondents to th e application must be identified as precisely as possible.” – paragraph 221.
viii) The injunction must spell out clearly, and in everyday terms, the full extent of the acts it prohibits, and should extend no further than the minimum necessary to achieve its proper purpose – paragraph 222. ix) There must be strict temporal and territorial limits – paragraph 225. The court doubted if more than a year would be justified in Traveller cases – paragraph 125 again. In my view that particular period does not necessarily apply in all cases, or in the present one, because they do not involve local authorities and Travellers.
10
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator