Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
Double-click to enter the short title
49. I now will turn to the matters that have to be considered in order for the Claimants to justify their application for such an injunction, as referred to in paragraph 167 and in the subsequent paragraphs of the judgment in Wolverhampton .
Compelling justification for the remedy
50. The guidance at paragraph 167(i) requires there to be a compelling need, sufficiently demonstrated by the evidence, for the remedy that is sought, which is not adequately met by other measures available to the claimants. The compelling need is described at paragraph188 as the " overarching principle that must guide the court at all stages of its consideration". At paragraph 218, it was also held that there must be a strong probability that a tort or breach of planning control or other aspect of public law is to be committed and that this "will cause real harm". At paragraph 189, there were identified three preliminary questions:
(1) whether the local authority has complied with its obligations to consider and provide lawful stopping places for gypsies and travellers;
(2) whether the local authority has exhausted all reasonable alternatives, including whether it has engaged in dialogue with the gypsy and traveller community to try and find a way to accommodate their way of life by giving them time and assistance to find alternative or transit sites or permanent accommodation; (3) whether the local authority has taken steps to control or prohibit unauthorised encampments and related activities by using other measures and powers at its disposal.
Evidence of wrongful conduct requiring a remedy
51. The Claimants rely on a number of statements, including Mr. Williams’ fourth witness statement, the first witness statement of Inspector Charles Ilderton and
Draft 31 March 2025 12:22
Page 15
55
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator