MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
(The reference to obstruction of a police vehicle in [10] is to an incident on 12 May 2022, which featured as an allegation of breach of the Interim Injunction made in the Contempt Application against Mr Curtin – see [248]-[254] below.) 41. I refused to grant other amendments to the Interim Injunction sought by the Claimants: see Section E of the Second Injunction Variation Judgment ([58]-[80]). The Claimants had originally sought to revisit the question of whether the Interim Injunction should prohibit the flying of drones, but they abandoned that part of the application (see [16]). D: Alleged breaches of the Interim Injunction 42. The Claimants have pursued several contempt applications, against both named Defendants and against a person alleged to fall within a category of “Persons Unknown”, alleging breaches of the Interim Injunction. (1) The First Contempt Applications 43. Contempt applications were issued against the Twelfth and Thirteenth Defendants (“The First Contempt Applications”). Both Defendants were alleged to have breached the Interim Injunction in the contempt application issued on 17 December 2021. A second contempt application, alleging further breaches of the Interim Injunction, was issued against the Thirteenth Defendant on 16 February 2022. They were heard on 6-7 April 2022. In the First Contempt Judgment, handed down on 16 May 2022, I dismissed the 17 December 2021 contempt application brought against the Thirteenth Defendant. Both Defendants were found guilty of contempt of court in respect of admitted breaches of the Interim Injunction. 44. On 17 June 2022, a further contempt application was made against the Twenty-Third Defendant. 45. On 2 August 2022, I imposed penalties for contempt of court on the Defendants. The Twelfth Defendant was given a sentence of imprisonment of 3 months and the Thirteenth Defendant was given a sentence of imprisonment of 28 days. Both periods of imprisonment were suspended for 18 months. The periods of suspension have now ended. I imposed no sanction on the Twenty-Third Defendant, who had admitted a breach of the Interim Injunction, although she was ordered to pay a sum in costs. None of these Defendants has been alleged to be guilty of a further breach of the Interim Injunction. (2) The Second Contempt Application 46. On 4 July 2022, the Claimants issued a further contempt application against Gillian Frances McGivern, a solicitor (“the Second Contempt Application”). Ms McGivern was alleged to have breached the Interim Injunction, as a “Person Unknown”, on 4 May 2022 by, variously, parking her car in the Exclusion Zone, entering the Exclusion Zone, trespassing on the First Claimant’s land (by approaching the entry gate) and approaching and/or obstructing vehicles directly exiting and/or entering the Exclusion Zone. 47. The Second Contempt Application was heard on 21-22 July 2022. In the Second Contempt Judgment, handed down on 2 August 2022, I dismissed the contempt
80
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator