Approved Judgment
Wolverhampton framework. The Vastint test, however, provides a useful double check. In my judgment, for the reasons set out above, this case satisfies that check. There is a strong possibility that, unless restrained by an injunction, persons unknown will act in breach of the rights which the Claimant is seeking to protect and if that happens the resulting harm would be so grave and irreparable that, notwithstanding the grant of an immediate interlocutory injunction to restrain further occurrence of the acts complained of, a remedy of damages would be inadequate. 79. Finally, so far as I can judge, the Claimant has complied with the duty of full and frank disclosure throughout its evidence and submissions. Conclusion 80. In those circumstances, in my judgment, it is just and convenient to grant the injunctive relief sought. 81. The error in the notification in respect of Site 334, referred to at [5] above, needs to be addressed. In my judgment, the appropriate and proportionate response to that issue is to suspend the operation of the injunction as it affects that site for 28 days. That will give any person affected sufficient time to make an application to the Court under the liberty to apply clause of the Order. 82. The claimant will be granted a one-year continuation of the Injunction as against the 90 th and 93 rd Defendants, Persons Unknown.
40
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator