MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
expression/assembly and the legitimate rights of others, than a Court attempting to frame a civil injunction prospectively against unknown “protestors”. M: Wolverhampton and its impact on this case (1) Background 333. The context of the litigation that gave rise to the Supreme Court decision in Wolverhampton was a preponderance of cases in which Courts had granted injunctions against “Persons Unknown” (and in at least one case a contra mundum injunction) to restrain trespass on the land of local authorities by Gypsies and Travellers. The facts are set out in the first instance decision: LB Barking & Dagenham -v- Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 1201 (QB) . Four issues of principle were resolved by me, the most significant being whether a “final injunction” against “Persons Unknown” could bind people who were not parties to the action at the date the injunction was granted (the so-called ‘newcomers’). 334. Based on established authorities, principally the decisions of the Supreme Court in Cameron -v- Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2019] 1 WLR 1471 and the Court of Appeal in Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd -v- Persons Unknown [2020] 1 WLR 2802 , I decided that it could not: [161]-[189]. I reached that conclusion based on the application of conventional principles of civil litigation and the established limits of those who were made subject to the Court’s orders. 335. I also considered the question of whether contra mundum injunctions might provide an answer for restraining the actions of ‘newcomers’, but held that contra mundum orders were wholly exceptional and were reserved for cases (like those decided under the Venables jurisdiction) where the Court was effectively compelled to grant a contra mundum order to avoid a breach of s.6 Human Rights Act 1998: [224]-[238]. (2) The Court of Appeal decision 336. The Court of Appeal reversed my decision: [2023] QB 295. Disapproving the previous Court of Appeal decision in Canada Goose and applying South Cambridgeshire District Council -v- Gammell [2006] 1 WLR 658 , the Court of Appeal held that that s.37 Senior Courts Act 1981 gave the court power to grant a final injunction that bound individuals who were not parties to the proceedings at the date when the injunction was granted. The Court held that there was no difference in jurisdictional terms between an interim and a final injunction, particularly in the context of those granted against “Persons Unknown”. Where an injunction was granted, whether on an interim or a final basis, the court retained the right to supervise and enforce that injunction, including bringing before the court parties violating the injunction who thereby made themselves parties to the proceedings. (3) The Supreme Court decision 337. Despite there being no defendants to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Supreme Court nevertheless heard an appeal brought by the interveners. 338. The appeal from the Court of Appeal’s decision was dismissed, but the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. The Supreme Court held that the Court
152
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator