MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
will be bound by it, just as effectively as the injunction in the proceedings the subject of this appeal has bound newcomer Gypsies and Travellers. [236] Counsel for the Secretary of State for Transport has submitted and we accept that each of these cases has called for a full and careful assessment of the justification for the order sought, the rights which are or may be interfered with by the grant of the order, and the proportionality of that interference. Again, in so far as the applicant seeks an injunction against newcomers, the judge must be satisfied there is a compelling need for the order. Often the circumstances of these cases vary significantly one from another in terms of the range and number of people who may be affected by the making or refusal of the injunction sought; the legal right to be protected; the illegality to be prevented; and the rights of the respondents to the application. The duration and geographical scope of the injunction necessary to protect the applicant’s rights in any particular case are ultimately matters for the judge having regard to the general principles we have explained. 346. Whilst the matters addressed by the Supreme Court were specific to the particular context of Gypsies and Travellers’ encampments (see [190]-[217]), what emerges is that, before contra mundum ‘newcomer’ injunctions are granted, the Court must consider “ whether the [applicant] has exhausted all reasonable alternatives to the grant of an injunction ”. Of course, in the context of the problems of unlawful encampments of land, a local authority has a range of other options available to it – ranging from byelaws, public space protection orders to directions made under s.77 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. 347. Private litigants, such as the Claimants in this case, do not have access to similar powers. The fact that an applicant for a contra mundum ‘newcomer’ injunction can demonstrate infringements of the civil law does not mean that they can have immediate recourse to a contra mundum ‘newcomer’ injunction. Consideration of both whether the applicant has demonstrated a compelling justification for the remedy and whether it is just and convenient to grant such an order will require the Court to consider what other (and potentially better) solutions may be available, particularly in the context of protests. 348. In the context of protest cases, the Court is entitled to and must have regard to (a) the extensive powers the police have to deal with protest activities, including, from 28 June 2022, the new statutory offence of public nuisance in s.78 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (see [81] above); and (in relation to potential exclusion zones) (b) the powers of local authorities to impose public space protection orders under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (see Wolverhampton [204]). 349. In Canada Goose -v- Persons Unknown [2020] WLR 417 , a protest case, I said this:
[100] The evidence in the current case shows that there have been few arrests by the police of demonstrators prior to the grant of the injunction. I was told at the hearing that the Claimants know of no prosecutions of any protestors. Evidence before Teare J suggested that the cost of policing the demonstrations was around £108,000. Of course, individuals and companies are entitled to pursue such private law remedies as are available to them and to seek interim injunctions where appropriate, but this case (and Ineos and Astellas – see [119] below) perhaps demonstrate the
157
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator