Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
Double-click to enter the short title
notice injunction, the Order continuing the Injunction must include a 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. The draft order includes posting selected documents on the land and a notice directing persons unknown to a website on which all evidence in support of this claim has been uploaded. 74. The court was provided with documents evidencing the service of this application, on 17 and 18 February 2025, whereby notices, the application and draft order have been attached to various lampposts, footpath bridges, telegraph poles and signs. Many documents are tightly wrapped around the poles and so are difficult to read. The Order of Freedman J are clearly displayed as it is affixed in a manner that does not require folding. There also is an email address utilised by the London Gypsy and Travellers group. The Application notice was sent to this email. On 20 March 2025, during the hearing, there was an email requesting a link to the evidence.
Territorial and temporal limits
75. The Claimants point to their application being for an injunction with a temporal limit of one year and so it would be a two-year period of a Traveller Injunction against Persons Unknown, including newcomers. The court must consider whether this is a proportionate response to the unlawful activity at which it is directed. In Wolverhampton at paragraph 167 (iv) the Supreme Court refers to the requirement of restraint of newcomer injunctions to ensure as far as practicable they neither “outflank nor outlast the compelling circumstances relied upon.” This is expanded in paragraph 225 where the Supreme Court emphasises the exceptional nature of this type of injunction. 76. The evidence demonstrates that the Injunction has been effective. This creates the circular question and answer as to whether its requirement is therefore redundant. However, there is evidence that the threat or risk or mischief at which the Injunction is directed have not dissipated. Mr. Williams provided evidence that he contacted the neighbouring local authorities, and they
Draft 31 March 2025 12:22
Page 22
62
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator