MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
vulnerable to deliberate acts of trespass by protestors targeted against it because of the nature of its business. Leaving the First Claimant to pursue ad hoc civil remedies against individual trespassers would be likely to provide inadequate protection for its civil rights. On the other hand, I have real concerns that this form of order is potentially open to abuse by the First Claimant. It threatens to expose people who do nothing more than step momentarily on the First Claimant’s land at the Wyton Site to the threat of proceedings for contempt of court. However, I have decided that these risks are adequately mitigated by the following factors: (1) First, a contempt application would only be successful if the First Claimant demonstrates that the alleged trespasser had notice of the terms of the contra mundum injunction. It is quite clear from the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolverhampton that notice is an essential pre-requisite of liability for breach of the new contra mundum ‘newcomer’ injunction that it has sanctioned. (I say nothing about what, if any, notice is required for the sort of contra mundum injunction made under the Venables jurisdiction, which appear to me to raise very different questions, and upon which I have received no submissions). (2) Second, the First Claimant is subject and will remain subject to the Contempt Application Permission Requirement that was imposed on 2 August 2022 (see [49] above). This will mean that the First Claimant will have to make an application to the Court for permission to bring a contempt application alleging breach of the contra mundum order. The evidence in support of the application for permission would need to demonstrate that the proposed contempt application (a) is one that has a real prospect of success; (b) is not one that relies upon wholly technical or insubstantial breaches; and (c) is supported by evidence that the respondent had actual knowledge of the terms of the injunction before being alleged to have breached it. Ms Bolton accepted that the continuation of the Contempt Application Permission Requirement was appropriate if the Court were prepared to grant a contra mundum injunction. The contra mundum order will record, again, the Contempt Application Permission Requirement, and what the First Claimant must demonstrate in order to be granted permission. 390. Based on my experience in this case, and my concerns about potential abuse of such injunctions (see [370]-[374] above), it is my very clear view that all contra mundum ‘newcomer’ injunctions, particularly those in protest cases, should include a requirement that the Court’s permission be obtained before a contempt application can be instituted. This would reduce the risks of a contra mundum injunction being used as a weapon against perceived adversaries for trivial infringements. 391. The decision in relation to granting a contra mundum injunction to restrain 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 is more straightforward. If the injunction focuses, as it should, on direct and deliberate obstruction, then unlike trespass, this is unlikely to be an unintentional act or one committed by inadvertence. On the contrary, people who attend the Wyton Site to protest will quickly come to understand that the Court has prohibited direct and deliberate obstruction of vehicles entering or leaving the Wyton Site.
167
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator