“ Paragraph [167(iv)] repeats guidance from earlier case law and requires newcomer injunctions to be constrained by territorial and temporal limitations to ensure, as far as it practicable, that they neither ‘outflank nor outlast the compelling circumstances relied upon’. That guidance is expanded upon in [225] , where the Supreme Court highlighted the exceptional nature of the remedy and found: i. ‘[w] e have considerable doubt as to whether it would ever be justifiable to grant a Gypsy or Traveller injunction which is directed to persons unknown, including newcomers, and extends over the whole of a borough or for significantly more than a year ’; ii. ‘ an injunction which extends borough-wide is likely to leave the Gypsy and Traveller communities with little or no room for manoeuvre ’;
iii. the injunction must be a proportionate response to the unlawful activity to which it is directed;
iv. injunctions of this kind must be reviewed periodically, and come to an end with the effluxion of time in all cases after no more than a year unless an application is made for their renewal. Such an application should be supported by evidence as to how effective the injunction has been, whether any grounds for its discharge have arisen, whether there is a any proper justification for its continuation and whether and on what basis any further order should be made.”
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
254
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator