Approved Judgment
(v) Basis for a further order 70.
The basis for a continuation of the order, both legally and factually is the same as that which justified the grant of the order in 2024. The terms of the order will be similar. (vi) The Wolverhampton requirements 71. For the reasons set out above, in my judgment a full Wolverhampton assessment is not necessary on the facts of this case. I see no ground for going behind the findings of Butcher J. 72. For the sake of completion I can indicate, however, that I have no doubt that there has been clear and comprehensive evidence of wrongful conduct requiring a remedy; there remains a compelling justification for the Injunction; the Claimant has complied with its obligations to consider and provide lawful stopping places for Gypsies and Travellers; the Claimant has considered all reasonable alternative means of controlling or prohibiting unauthorised encampments; and has properly attempted to engage with Gypsy and Traveller communities in an attempt to encourage dialogue and co- operation, and better understand the needs of the respective parties. 73. The order I propose making includes generous liberty to apply provisions, and an obligation to take all reasonable steps to bring the application and any order to the attention of those who may be affected by any order made. It makes provision for (alternative) service (or, more accurately after the Wolverhampton ‘notification’) of the Order and any subsequent continuation application. 74. The order is constrained by territorial and temporal limitations so as to ensure, as far as it practicable, that they neither ‘outflank nor outlast the compelling circumstances relied upon’. It is not borough-wide against Persons Unknown, (nor has it or the interim relief ever been). The Injunction is appropriately limited; the 334 protected sites equate to less than 10% of the Borough and have been carefully selected. They include sensitive sites such as schools, recreational areas, green spaces and business parks, on which the formation of unauthorised encampments is especially harmful. The selected sites are sites that were either targeted frequently prior to the grant of injunctive relief, or are of the same nature as those sites that were frequently targeted. 75. The order’s operation is limited to one-year, with the possibility of continuation upon review. If no further application is made, the Order will expire by the effluxion of time. 76. The proposed respondents are defined as precisely as possible, identified and enjoined where possible. The injunction sought by the Claimant is, in my judgment, clear and precise, it uses everyday terms, when setting out the acts that it prohibits. The prohibited acts correspond closely to the actual or threatened unlawful conduct, and extend no further than the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose for which it was granted. 77. In my judgment there is no reason to depart from the usual position that no undertaking as to damages is required. 78. In my judgment, the test articulated by Marcus Smith J in Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 2 and approved by Sir Geoffrey Vos MR in Barking and Dagenham v Persons Unknown [2022] EWCA Civ 13 has been subsumed into the
39
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator