MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
(1) By parking his car on the Access Road, Mr Curtin did obstruct the highway. However, this was wholly technical. There is no evidence that anyone was actually obstructed by the vehicle. The placing of the dog crates on the Access Road was arguably more of an obstruction in this incident, and I am surprised that the police allowed this to take place. Nevertheless, even the placing of the dog crates represented only a temporary obstruction. The Claimants do not hold Mr Curtin responsible for the alleged obstruction created by the placing of the dog crates on the Access Road. (2) To the extent that there was any obstruction of the highway in this incident, it did not amount to a public nuisance. The obstruction was temporary and, applying the test of what amounts to “public nuisance” (set out in [93] above), there is no evidence that anyone was actually obstructed still less that the obstruction affected the public generally. (3) The incident did not involve any arguable harassment of the First Claimant’s employees. 9 August 2021 181. The Claimants allege that Mr Curtin (and others) trespassed on the Access Land and obstructed vehicles leaving the Wyton Site. A white Nissan Duke, driven by a contractor, was obstructed. 182. It is further alleged that Mr Curtin (and others), by their obstruction of the vehicles, interfered with the First Claimant’s common law right of access to the highway from the Wyton Site and caused a public nuisance by obstructing the same vehicles on the public highway. The obstruction of the vehicles is also alleged to be part of a course of conduct involving harassment of the relevant employees by Mr Curtin. 183. Mr Curtin was not cross-examined about this incident. I make no findings about it. 12 August 2021 184. The Claimants allege that Mr Curtin (and others) stood on, and slow walked along, the Access Road and the main carriageway and obstructed vehicles driven by the First Claimant’s staff; a white Vauxhall Astra, driven by Employee V; a black Volkswagen Polo, driven by Employee Q, a white Ford car, driven by Employee P; and a white Mercedes A Class, driven by Employee F. 185. It is further alleged that Mr Curtin (and others), by their obstruction of the vehicles, interfered with the First Claimant’s common law right of access to the highway from the Wyton Site. 186. Employee F gave evidence about this incident. On this occasion, Mr Curtin had what was described as a tambourine-style drum. By reference to the CCTV footage, Employee F gave the following description:
“Each of [the] protestors stood in the Access Road so as to block the convoy of cars in which I was driving the fourth and last car. The protestors then slow walked, and occasionally stopped, along the Access Road and the highway so that the convoy could only pass along the highway at a very slow speed… Once we had
115
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator