MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
against “Persons Unknown” is not a limited civil restraint order, it restricts only this specific form of application. The Claimants will remain free to issue and pursue applications in the underlying proceedings. I am satisfied that the imposition of a targeted restriction on the Claimants’ ability to bring such contempt applications is a necessary and proportionate step to protect the Court (and the respondents to any future contempt applications) from proceedings that have no real prospect of success and/or serve no legitimate purpose. [104]I will therefore make an order requiring the Claimants to obtain the permission of the Court before they bring any further contempt application against anyone alleged to be in the category of “Persons Unknown” and to have breached the Injunction. 49. The order, on 2 August 2022, dismissing the Second Contempt Application therefore included the following provisions (“the Contempt Application Permission Requirement”): “3. Any further contempt application against any person, not being a named Defendant in the proceedings, may only be brought by the Claimants with the permission of the Court. 4. An application for permission under Paragraph 3 above, must be made by Application Notice attaching the proposed contempt application and evidence in support. The Court will normally expect the Claimants to have notified the proposed Respondent in writing of the allegation(s) that s/he has breached the injunction order. Any response by the Respondent should be provided to the Court with the application to bring a contempt application. Unless the Court otherwise directs, any such application will be dealt with by the Court on the papers.” 50. I refused an application by the Claimants for permission to appeal against the imposition of the Contempt Application Permission Requirement. The Claimants did not renew their application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. 51. I returned to the issue of potential abuse of “Persons Unknown” injunctions in the Second Injunction Variation Judgment, where I said this ([12]):
“The operation of the interim injunction over the last 12 months has given cause for concern about whether the order is being used by the Claimants as a ‘weapon’ against the protestors or their supporters. The contempt application against Ms McGivern was dismissed. I found that the breaches alleged against Ms McGivern were trivial: see [the Second Contempt Judgment] [96]. The Claimants well know, and fully understand, the basis on which the exclusion zone has been imposed. It is not to be used by the Claimants as an opportunity to take action against protestors for trivial infringements that have none of the elements that led to the grant of the interim injunction and are not otherwise unlawful acts. Ultimately, if there were to be any repetition of contempt applications being brought for trivial infringements, then the Court might have to reconsider the terms of the interim injunction order that should remain in place pending trial”.
83
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator