HS2 Ltd & SSfT v Persons Unknown & Ors
Approved Judgment:
Government to cease to build each and all of the phases set out above and saving the environments affected by the project. All such increased costs have been funded by UK taxpayers. It is not the role of this Courts to make any comment on any of those matters. In relation to civil unlawfulness, the Courts deal with applications and claims made by parties. 6. On 19 February 2018 Baring J. (PT 2018 000098) made an interim injunction protecting the Claimants’ HS2 Harvil Road site from unlawful actions by PUs and named Defendants. Those included D28, 33, 36, and 39 in the action before me. I do not know how the claim progressed. This was renewed on 18 September 2020 by David Holland QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. 7. On 23 March 2022 (QB 2022 BHM 000016) Linden J. made an interim injunction protecting the Claimants’ HS2’s contractor’s land leased at Swynnerton, which was being used by Balfour Beatty (the contractor), which is very near to Cash’s Pit Land (CPL) which the protesters called Bluebell Woods Camp. The interim injunction was to remain in force until further order and expired after 12 months. D6 in the action before me was a Defendant and appeared at that hearing. Directions were given for the claim to be pleaded out and for evidence to be filed and protection was given to PUs by the right to vary or set aside the order. I do not know how that claim progressed. 8. On 10 February 2021 (CO/361/2021) Steyn J. made an interim injunction order protecting the Claimants’ HS2 land at Euston Square, London.” On 28.3.2022 (QB 2021 004465) Linden J. made an interim injunction order protecting the Claimants’ HS2 land at Euston Square, London. This was against Larch Maxey; Daniel Hooper (one of the Defendants in the case before me); Isla Sandford; J Stephenson-Clarke and B Croarkin. I do not know how that claim progressed. 9. The claim before me started by the issuing of the Claim Form on 28.3.2022. The Claimants sought possession of land at CPL and sought an injunction prohibiting PUs and named Defendants from trespassing and interfering with the construction of the project. They sought delivery up of possession of CPL, declaratory relief relating to possession of CPL, an injunction and costs. 10. The Claimants issued an application for urgent interim injunctions relating to CPL and routewide at the same time. D6 was represented at the hearing. Cotter J. made: (1) an order for possession of CPL against D6 and all the other Defendants, and (2) an interim injunction order against PUs and certain named Defendants who were believed to be occupying CPL (D5-20, 22, 31 and 63). The numbers and remaining Defendants’ names (many have since been released from the claim) are set out in the Annex to this judgment. The original interim injunction was to last until trial or further order and expired on 24.10.2022 in any event.
5
30
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online