MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
circumstances, together with temporal and geographical limits on the scope of the order so as to ensure that it is proportional to the rights and interests sought to be protected.
(c) to comply in full with the disclosure duty which attaches to the making of a without notice application, including bringing to the attention of the court any matter which (after due research) the applicant considers that a newcomer might wish to raise by way of opposition to the making of the order. (d) to show that it is just and convenient in all the circumstances that the order sought should be made. (v) If those considerations are adhered to, there is no reason in principle why newcomer injunctions should not be granted.” (a) The Gammell principle disapproved as the basis for newcomer injunctions 339. As noted in paragraph (ii) of the Supreme Court’s summary, the ‘newcomer’ injunction it recognised was a contra mundum order. In disagreement with the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court disapproved of the previous basis upon which ‘newcomer’ injunctions had been granted using the principle from Gammell to treat ‘newcomers’, by their conduct, as having become defendants to the proceedings and bound to comply with the injunction: [127]-[132]. 340. Ms Bolton submitted that the species of injunction newly sanctioned by the Supreme Court was “ analogous ” to a contra mundum injunction. Whilst the Supreme Court did use the word “ analogous ” in discussion of ‘newcomer’ injunctions ([132]), the new form of order that it ultimately approved is not analogous to a contra mundum order; it is a contra mundum order. That is plain from [238(ii)]. (b) The key features of, and justification for, a contra mundum ‘newcomer’ injunction 341. The Supreme Court identified the “ distinguishing features ” of a ‘newcomer’ injunction as follows [143]: “(i) They are made against persons who are truly unknowable at the time of the grant, rather than (like Lord Sumption’s class 1 in Cameron ) identifiable persons whose names are not known. They therefore apply potentially to anyone in the world. (ii) They are always made, as against newcomers, on a without notice basis (see [139] above). However, as we explain below, informal notice of the application for such an injunction may nevertheless be given by advertisement. (iii) In the context of Travellers and Gypsies they are made in cases where the persons restrained are unlikely to have any right or liberty to do that which is prohibited by the order, save perhaps Convention rights to be weighed in a proportionality balance. The conduct restrained is typically either a plain trespass or a plain breach of planning control, or both.
154
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator