MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
[97] Ms Bolton’s final submission was that the Claimants were “ entitled ” to bring the contempt application against Ms McGivern; “ entitled ” to spend two days of Court time and resources pursuing an application that, on an objective assessment of the evidence, was only ever likely to end with the imposition of no penalty; and “ entitled ” to put a solicitor through the ordeal of a potentially career-ending contempt application and all the disruption that it has caused to Ms McGivern’s work and the impact it has had on this litigation. There is no such “ entitlement ”. The contempt application against Ms McGivern will be dismissed and will be certified as being totally without merit. 48. I was satisfied that, in the circumstances of this litigation, and particularly given the risk of abuse of “Persons Unknown” injunctions, it was necessary to impose a requirement that the Claimants must obtain the permission of the Court before instituting any contempt application against someone alleged to have breached the Interim Injunction as a “Person Unknown”. I explained my reasons for doing so: [101] For the reasons I have explained in this judgment, depending upon its terms, a “Persons Unknown” injunction can have the potential to catch in its net people that were never intended by the Court to be caught. Ms McGivern is an example, but others were discussed at the hearing, including the passing motorist who stops temporarily in outside the gates of the Wyton Site and who inadvertently obstructs a vehicle that is leaving the premises. By dint of the operation of the definition of “Persons Unknown” and the deemed notice of the terms of the Injunction under the alternative service order, that motorist, like Ms McGivern, ends up potentially having to face a contempt application. In ordinary cases, the Court might usually expect that a litigant who had obtained such an injunction would consider carefully whether it was proportionate and/or a sensible use of the Court’s and the parties’ resources for contempt proceedings to be brought against someone who had inadvertently contravened the terms of the injunction. The Claimants have demonstrated that, even with the benefit of professional advice and representation, the Court cannot rely upon them to perform that task appropriately. [102]I am satisfied that the Court does have the power, ultimately as part of its case management powers to protect its processes from being abused and its resources being wasted, to impose a permission requirement. I reject the submission that the Court is powerless and must simply adjudicate upon such contempt applications that the Claimants seek to bring. “Persons Unknown” injunctions are recognised to be exceptional specifically because they have the potential to catch newcomers. I do not consider that it is an undue hardship that these Claimants should be required to satisfy the Court that a contempt application they wish to bring (a) is one that has a real prospect of success; (b) is not one that relies upon wholly technical or insubstantial breaches; and (c) is supported by evidence that the respondent had actual knowledge of the terms of the injunction before being alleged to have breached it. [103] Although the conditions for the making of a limited civil restraint order are not met, the imposition of a requirement that the Claimants must obtain the permission of the Court before bringing any further contempt applications
82
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator