25. The court will now consider the matters that have to be considered in order to justify such an injunction as referred to in paragraph 167 and in the subsequent paragraphs of the judgment in Wolverhampton .
Compelling justification for the remedy
26. The guidance at paragraph 167(i) requires there to be a compelling need, sufficiently demonstrated by the evidence, for the remedy that is sought, which is not adequately met by other measures available to the claimants. The compelling need is described at paragraph188 as the "overarching principle that must guide the court at all stages of its consideration" . At paragraph 218, it was also held that there must be a strong probability that a tort or breach of planning control or other aspect of public law is to be committed and that this "will cause real harm". At paragraph 189, there were identified three preliminary questions:
(1) whether the local authority has complied with its obligations to consider and provide lawful stopping places for gypsies and travellers;
(2) whether the local authority has exhausted all reasonable alternatives, including whether it has engaged in dialogue with the gypsy and traveller community to try and find a way to accommodate their way of life by giving them time and assistance to find alternative or transit sites or permanent accommodation; (3) whether the local authority has taken steps to control or prohibit unauthorised encampments and related activities by using other measures and powers at its disposal.
Evidence of wrongful conduct requiring a remedy
27. Reference was made above to the evidence of the second witness statement of Mr Chris Williams and the first witness statement of Inspector James Gallimore. In
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
247
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator