whether the current (ii) and (iii) of the draft order, which are provisions relating to setting up an encampment on any part of the land, need to be amended. I shall return to that at the end of this judgment. (3) The order is not an interim order in the sense that it is holding the ring until the final determination of the merits at trial. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to consider whether there should be a cross-undertaking in damages: see paragraph 234 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton . The judgment shall return to that in a moment. It is also acknowledged that in the event that any persons unknown become known, it may be necessary to name the persons to obtain injunctive relief against those persons in a new application or further proceedings: see paragraph 221 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton .
Cross-undertaking as to damages
48. As to the question of a cross-undertaking as to damages, it is ordinary in injunction proceedings brought by a local authority exercising a law enforcement function in the public interest for the court not to require a cross-undertaking in damages: see Kirklees Metropolitan BC v Wickes Building Supplies Limited [1993] AC 227 at 274B-E and 275C-D, and see also FSA v Sinaloa Bold PLC and others [2013] UKSC 11; [2013] 2 AC 28. Lord Mance delivering the unanimous judgment of the court held that "it remains the case that English law does not confer a general remedy for loss suffered by administrative law action. That is so, even though it involves breach of a public law duty". It may therefore be that there would be no remedy in damages. Nonetheless, there is the possibility of interference with Article 8 rights that needs to be considered. Usually there is no general question of interference with Article 8 rights, albeit that it could be engaged in respect of an Article 8 private and family life claim to pursue a nomadic lifestyle. The engagement of Article 8 rights usually cannot be known unless and until the newcomer makes themselves known in the proceedings. The right is a qualified and not an absolute right. It must be balanced against competing rights. It must be considered on a case-by-case basis. There has been a case of Birmingham City Council v Asfar [2019] EWHC 1619 (QB) where an undertaking from the claimant local authority was
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
257
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator