MRS JUSTICE HILL Approved Judgment
Valero v Persons Unknown (2025 review)
19. For the reasons given in an ex tempore judgment at the start of the hearing, to the extent that the Claimants required relief from sanctions I granted it. I did so, in summary, because, applying the well-known test in Denton and ors v TH White Ltd and ors [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] WLR 3926 at [40], this was neither a serious nor significant failure; it occurred due to some technical issues with the uploading process due to the size of the bundle; and it had not caused any prejudice to the Defendants or impacted on the litigation. The legal framework 20. In Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2024] 2 WLR 45 at [225] the Supreme Court observed that review hearings of this kind:
“…will give all parties an opportunity to make full and complete disclosure to the court, supported by appropriate evidence, as to how effective the order has been: whether any reasons or grounds for its discharge have emerged; whether there is any proper justification for continuance; and whether and on what a basis a further order ought to be made.”
21. In HS2 v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB), Ritchie J considered how the Court should approach its task at such a hearing:
“32. Drawing these authorities together, on a review of an interim injunction against PUs [Persons Unknown] and named Defendants, this Court is not starting de novo. The Judges who have previously made the interim injunctions have made findings justifying the interim injunctions. It is not the task of the Court on review to query or undermine those. However, it is vital to understand why they were made, to read and assimilate the findings, to understand the sub-strata of the quia timet, the reasons for the fear of unlawful direct action. Then it is necessary to determine, on the evidence, whether anything material has changed. If nothing material has changed, if the risk still exists as before and the claimant remains rightly and justifiably fearful of unlawful attacks, the extension may be granted so long as procedural and legal rigour has been observed and fulfilled. 33. On the other hand, if material matters have changed, the Court is required to analyse the changes, based on the evidence before it, and in the full light of the past decisions, to determine anew, whether the scope, details and need for the full interim injunction should be altered. To do so, the original thresholds for granting the interim injunction still apply.”
22. In Arla Foods v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1952 at [128], Jonathan Hilliard KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) described the annual review process as:
182
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator