MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
main gate could only do so by standing on the Driveway. Without a defence of implied licence, each and every person doing so would be a potential trespasser. 310. In addition, and during the currency of the proceedings, the understanding of where the public highway ended, and the First Claimant’s land began significantly changed (see [22]-[23] above). This means that the number of unidentified individuals who arguably have trespassed on the First Claimant’s land whilst protesting increases yet further. At the time of this alleged trespass, neither the individuals standing on the Access Land nor the Claimants would have been aware that this was an arguable trespass. 311. The incidents of more serious trespass – i.e. people accessing the Wyton Site by going beyond the entry gates or over the perimeter fence are very few. There were significant trespass incidents on 19-20 June 2022. On the first occasion, 25 people broke into the Wyton Site. On 20 June 2022, an unknown number of unidentified individuals broke into the Wyton Site and stole five dogs. There were several arrests. 312. Since the grant of the Interim Injunction, and specifically the imposition of the Exclusion Zone, the incidents of alleged trespass have significantly reduced (although not eliminated entirely). The Claimants’ evidence shows that there have been isolated incidents of “Persons Unknown” entering the Exclusion Zone and/or trespassing on the First Claimant’s land. For example, on 13 July 2022, 2 unidentified individuals chained themselves to the gate of the Wyton Site, delaying the departure of a van carrying dogs, and on 24 September 2022, 4 unidentified individuals glued themselves to the gate to the Wyton Site. They were removed by the police. (2) Trespass by drone flying over the Wyton Site 313. I have dealt above with the specific allegations made against Mr Curtin relating to drone flying. The Claimants also maintain a claim, and seek a contra mundum injunction to prevent drone flying over the Wyton Site. 314. In the Claimants’ pleaded case, the claim is advanced as follows “[Persons Unknown have] , without the licence or consent of the First Claimant, committed acts of trespass by flying drones: (1) directly over the Wyton Site; and/or (2) below 150 metres over the airspace of the Wyton Site; and/or (3) within 150 metres of the Wyton Site; and/or (4) below 50 metres over the airspace of the Wyton Site; and/or (5) within 50 metres of the Wyton Site; and/or (6) at a height that was not reasonable and interfered with the First Claimant’s ordinary and quiet use of the Wyton Site.
147
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator