control per se cannot be compensated for by way of damages, nor from the various nuisances that flow from the breaches and which are suffered by the local inhabitants.
53. The continued formation of encampments in the injunction area demonstrates that there clearly is a desire or propensity to form encampments, and it can be recently inferred that should the injunction lapse, a greater number of encampments would be formed. The continued formation of encampments in the injunction area demonstrates that the breaches and resulting harm are imminent and to some extent already occurring.
Concluding remarks
54. I have set out in the course of this judgment the reasons why a continuation of the injunction has been sought. I have set out the considerations in relation to the Wolverhampton case and any further considerations in respect of the multifactorial Vastint test. I am satisfied that the continuation of an injunction is required. I have been through the various matters that have been advanced by the claimants, and I am satisfied that the relevant tests have been complied with for the reasons already identified. The application has been well prepared and presented. There has been a compelling case that the injunction should continue, for the reasons that I have given. I have considered each of the requirements under paragraph 167 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, and I am satisfied on the evidence that each of these matters have been satisfied and in particular that there is a compelling justification for the remedy. 55. Nonetheless, there is a point of concern following the judgment of the Supreme Court. That makes clear that the continuation of the injunction is something that has to be constrained and checked. It is for that reason that there are the constraints in respect of territorial land temporal limitations. There is a danger in a matter like this that the reaction to the Supreme Court case would be to be involved in tick-boxing so that the case would then be reviewed every year and then continued at the end of the year subject to the tick-boxing. That would fail to reflect the nature of the guidance given by the Supreme Court, that makes it clear that the remedy is to be carefully scrutinised and only
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
260
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator