4. A very helpful and detailed skeleton argument dated 13 May 2024 was provided by counsel. There was then a hearing on 15 May 2024. On that occasion the hearing lasted three quarters of a day. On that occasion Ms Bolton took the court through rather dense evidence filed in particular by Mr Williams and also by Inspector James Gallimore of the Hampshire Constabulary. This enabled the court to have a much better understanding of the extent of the encampments both before and after the injunction was made in 2019. It enabled the court to understand the pattern of behaviour, insofar as there was one, and the particular harms, to which reference will be made, that have arisen as a result. 5. On 15 May 2024 the court was told that they were awaiting a judgment in the case called Test Valley BC and Hampton County Council v Bowers and others , which matter was being considered by HHJ Dight, CBE. Since that involved the same county and since it was also considering the impact of the Wolverhampton case on the injunction in that case, the court wished to have some knowledge, some greater knowledge of that case. It had been intended that the court would await obtaining a transcript of the judgment or listening to the judgment itself. It was obviously preferable to have a transcript because then and only then would there be the approved judgment of the judge. 6. It became apparent to the court this week that at first there were some significant differences between the facts of the Test Valley case and this case. The Test Valley case in part involved an application against known persons. Further, it became apparent that a written and approved judgment would take a number of weeks, bearing in mind not only the transcription time but the availability of the judge to approve that matter. Further, the court has noted that, albeit unapproved, there is a Westlaw summary in relation to the judgment in the Test Valley case, which is 2024 WL 02279183. In those circumstances, the court has taken the view that it is preferable to give judgment at this stage rather than to wait for a significant period of time and bearing in mind the professional commitments of this court in respect of other matters during June and July. 7. In the course of the hearing today, there has been reference to another case in which the same counsel appears on behalf of the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council before Butcher J. Butcher J has heard that matter and is intending to give judgment after a judgment has been given in this case. That was the case also where there had previously
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
240
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator