THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- McGivern
response we infer that the photograph is indeed of you, though please do correct us if in fact it is someone else”. If the Claimants and/or Mills & Reeve thought that Ms McGivern was the individual shown in the CCTV footage of events on 4 May 2022, it would have been a simple and straightforward matter for them to have said so. 28. Nothing further was said to Ms McGivern, whether in correspondence or otherwise, until Ms Bolton’s announcement in Court, a month later, on 20 June 2022, that Ms McGivern had “ breached the injunction ”. 29. Under a heading, “ Ms McGivern’s knowledge of the Injunction Order ”, Ms Pressick stated: “29. As I have set out above, Ms McGivern’s actions on 4 May 2022 cause her to fall within the Fifteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Defendant categories. Those categories of Defendant were served with the Injunction Order as per paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Injunction Order. 30. On top of that service, Ms McGivern must also have knowledge of the Injunction Order and its terms because: (i) In her email exchange with Mills & Reeve [on 19 May 2022], Ms McGivern made reference to her “assisting a number of the defendants named in the injunction proceedings, and that her firm had already been advising Camp Beagle protestors in criminal proceedings …
(ii) Ms McGivern appears to have been involved with Camp Beagle and the injunction proceedings for some time. I exhibit the transcript of the Case Management Hearing on 20 June 2022… [set out in [19] above] (iii) Ms McGivern, on 4 May 2022, spent a considerable amount of time talking with the protestors (including Mr Maher [the 12th Defendant]) at the Wyton Site, who would know of the Injunction Order and its terms. Furthermore, Ms McGivern is stood (sic) speaking with protestors on 4 May 2022, she is standing within feet of the noticeboard at the Wyton Site on which the Injunction Order is posted; she simply cannot have neglected to see that noticeboard and the Injunction Order. For example, [the CCTV footage] shows Ms McGivern in close proximity to the noticeboard between the timestamps of 16.04:40 and 16.09:42 and 16.12:43 and 16.13:04.”
30. The evidence in paragraph 30 is rather speculative. Having now seen the footage referred to by Ms Pressick in paragraph 30(iii), I would merely observe that Ms McGivern can be seen to be standing, talking to various people, several metres away from the noticeboard. There is no footage showing, nor is any allegation made by the Claimants, that Ms McGivern ever went to look at the noticeboard. Ms Pressick’s evidence therefore has very limited relevance insofar as it is tendered on the issue of Ms McGivern’s knowledge of the Injunction and its terms.
442
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator