46. On this basis, the claimants seek to continue the injunction within the territorial area of the injunction that has existed hitherto. I shall return to this in due course. As for the temporal nature of the injunction, the temporal limitations have been incorporated into the draft order. An order was sought of one year, and if there is a need for a further continuation, then that application would have to be made. Again, I shall return to that later in this judgment.
Is it just and convenient to grant the injunctive relief sought?
47. Paragraph 167(v) of the judgment in Wolverhampton is that it must be just and convenient to grant the injunction, reflecting the requirement in section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. There are several points that are made on behalf of the claimants in this regard. They include the following: (1) The intended respondents to an application must be defined as precisely as possible, defining the class of persons by reference to conduct and/or intention: see paragraph 221 of the Wolverhampton case. Work has been done so that the description of the persons unknown was amended in the order that was made consequent upon the 2 April 2024 hearing. (2) The injunction should be clear and precise and use everyday terms when setting out the acts that it prohibits and that the prohibited acts must correspond as closely as possible to the actual or threatened unlawful conduct and extend no further than the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose for which it was granted: see paragraphs 222 to 224 of the judgment. Again, attention has been given to this requirement, and the form of relief has been altered from the relief originally ordered, and the prohibited acts have been altered so as to make the nature of the prohibitions clearer and to ensure as far as possible that all relevant exceptions to the prohibited acts are set out so that the injunction does extend no further than the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose for which it was granted. Since the hearing on 2 April, further attention has been given to that, particularly following the hearings before HHJ Dight and Butcher J. As I shall refer to again, there is consideration as to
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
256
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator