MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
(2) Contra mundum 377. The terms of the contra mundum ‘newcomer’ injunction sought by the Claimants are set out in Annex 3 to the judgment. O: Decision 378. In this final section of the judgment, I will set out my decision. The final form of the orders that will be made consequent upon the judgment will be finalised at the hearing at which the judgment is handed down. As the only represented parties, I invite the Claimants’ team to provide the first draft. The orders that the Court ultimately makes will be posted on the Judiciary website: www.judiciary.uk. (1) The claim against Mr Curtin 379. Based on my factual findings, the First Claimant is entitled to judgment against Mr Curtin in respect of its claims against him for (1) trespass on the physical land at the Wyton Site; and (2) interference with the right of access from the Wyton Site to/from the public highway caused by obstructing of vehicles entering or leaving the Wyton Site. 380. The First Claimant’s claims against Mr Curtin for public nuisance, harassment and trespass by drone flying are dismissed. The claims of the remaining Claimants against Mr Curtin will be dismissed. 381. Consequent upon the judgment that the First Claimant has been granted, I am satisfied that it is necessary that an injunction should be granted to restrain Mr Curtin from (a) any physical trespass on the land owned by the First Claimant at the Wyton Site; and (b) any direct and deliberate obstruction of vehicles entering or leaving the Wyton Site. The injunction will not include any restrictions in relation to the B&K Site. 382. I have considered carefully whether to continue the prohibition on Mr Curtin’s entering the Exclusion Zone. I have concluded that I should not. The Exclusion Zone was a temporary expedient to resolve the flashpoint of vehicles being surrounded. The objectionable, and unlawful, conduct is obstructing vehicles entering or leaving the Wyton Site. The injunction should target that behaviour directly. Continuation of the Exclusion Zone would subject Mr Curtin to restrictions on activities that are not unlawful, for example if Mr Curtin wanted simply to stand on that part of the grass verge that is presently within the Exclusion Zone. The Claimants have not demonstrated that such a restriction is the only way of protecting their legitimate interests. Mr Curtin should not be exposed to the risk of proceedings for contempt by doing acts that are not themselves a civil wrong. 383. The restriction on obstructing vehicles will be drafted in a way that is clear and specific. It will not include the word “ approach ” or the concept of “ slowing ” a vehicle. Approaching a vehicle in a way that is not an obstruction of that vehicle is not an act that the First Claimant is entitled to restrain. The incident on 11 July 2022 (see [275]-[279] above) demonstrates the risks that an injunction framed in these terms risks capturing behaviour that the Court never intended to restrain. Mr Curtin, and the Claimants, now know what acts amount to obstructing a vehicle.
165
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator