MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
taken down each time a vehicle needed to gain access to/from the Wyton Site. I asked Mr Curtin whether the First Claimant had ever asked the protestors to remove the banner that was placed across the main gate. He answered that it had not. Ms Bolton challenged this. It is not a point I need to resolve. 209. My findings in relation to the pleaded 6 September 2021 incident are: (1) Mr Curtin trespassed, for a short period, on the First Claimant’s land. (2) Mr Curtin (with others) obstructed the white van seeking to enter the Wyton Site. The obstruction was short-lived; lasting about 6 minutes. At worst, it could have caused only minor inconvenience to the driver of the vehicle, but there is no evidence that he was inconvenienced at all. (3) 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), it affected only one individual rather than the public generally. (4) The incident is not even arguably capable of amounting to harassment, applying the legal test I have set out above. 8 September 2021 210. The Claimants allege that Mr Curtin (and others) trespassed on the Access Land and obstructed vehicles seeking to enter the Wyton Site. Mr Curtin is alleged to have obstructed a white Volvo XC60, driven by the First Claimant’s Production Manager (“the Production Manager”); a white Vauxhall Astra, driven by Employee V; a silver Kia Sorento, driven by Employee B; a white Skoda Fabia, driven by Employee AA; a grey Vauxhall Corsa, driven by Employee J; a white Ford motor car, driven by Employee P; a blue Ford Kuga; and a grey Honda Civic, driven by Employee I (“the First Incident”). 211. It is further alleged that Mr Curtin (and others), by their obstruction of the vehicles in the First Incident, 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. 212. Later that same morning (“the Second Incident”), the Claimants allege that Mr Curtin (and others) caused a further public nuisance by obstructing a grey pickup truck towing a trailer, being driven by an employee of the First Claimant. The vehicle was delivering dog crates to the Wyton Site, and it is alleged that Mr Curtin obstructed the vehicle by approaching the front driver’s side of the vehicle, causing it to stop. It is alleged that a further public nuisance was caused when Mr Curtin (and others) obstructed the same vehicle as it attempted to exit the Wyton Site a little time later. The obstruction of the vehicles, on both occasions, is also alleged to be part of a course of conduct involving harassment of the drivers of the relevant vehicles by Mr Curtin. 213. In the final incident that day, in the afternoon, the Claimants allege that Mr Curtin (and others) caused a further public nuisance by obstructing the highway for several vehicles driven by the Production Manager, Employee AA and Employee A which were
120
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator