Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
Double-click to enter the short title
82.The court has been assisted by the Claimants’ full and frank disclosure and detailed skeleton argument and the court is alerted to the fact that the First Claimant can no longer meet its five-year supply need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches.
The Vastint multifactorial test
83.The Claimants seek precautionary relief. The principles in respect of precautionary relief are set out by Marcus Smith J in Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 2 (‘ Vastint ’), as approved by Vos MR in London Borough of Barking and Dagenham & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 13; [2023] QB 295. The extent to which these guidelines and multifactorial test should be considered in light of Wolverhampton is unclear. They have not been disapproved. The court had paid careful regard to them, in particular paragraph 31 as set out in the judgment of Freedman J. Gypsy and Traveller Communities and granting of this Application for an Injunction 84. I find on the evidence and information provided to the Court that the multifactorial test in Vastint and the guidelines in Wolverhampton are satisfied. 85. The Injunction sought is constrained by temporal and geographical limitations to ensure, as far as practicable, that they neither outflank nor outlast the compelling circumstances relied upon. 86. In considering whether there is a compelling need for an injunction and it is, on the facts, just and convenient to grant one, I find that it is clearly evidenced that the injunctive relief has been an effective way of dealing with the formation of unauthorised encampments in the Injunction Area and the harm caused by those encampments, whether by preventing the formation of encampments, or in assisting with moving encampments on in a timely and cost-efficient manner once they have been formed. I consider that there is a
Draft 31 March 2025 12:22
Page 25
65
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator