Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
Double-click to enter the short title
against newcomers, the possibility of defining the class of persons by reference to conduct and/or intention should be explored and adopted if possible; paragraph 221 of Wolverhampton. This was addressed by Freedman J and so the 116 th Defendant is more precisely defined as “persons unknown who are forming unauthorised encampments in the Borough of Basingstoke and Deane”. ii. the injunction should be clear and precise, and use everyday terms, when setting out the acts that it prohibits. The prohibited acts must correspond as closely as possible to the actual or threatened unlawful conduct and extend no further than the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose for which it was granted; paragraphs 222 to 224 of Wolverhampton. Again, this was considered by Freedman J, and the proposed Order reflects the previous wording. iii. the order is not an interim order, in the sense that it is holding the ring until the final determination of the merits at trial. However, it is appropriate that there be consideration of whether there should be a cross-undertaking in damages: see paragraph 234 of Wolverhampton. Cross-undertaking as to Damages 80. This was considered by Freedman J at paragraph 48 of his judgment. I don’t repeat his analysis save to highlight the potential engagement of the 116 th Defendant’s rights pursuant to Article 8 ECHR in respect of a right to a private and family life following a nomadic lifestyle. It is a qualified right and must be balanced against competing rights and such engagement would usually occur when an unknown person becomes a known person. 81. In the circumstances of this cases there is no reason to depart from the ordinary position summarised by Freedman J. The Claimants are not required to give an undertaking in damages.
Full and frank disclosure
Draft 31 March 2025 12:22
Page 24
64
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator