HS2 Ltd & SSfT v Persons Unknown & Ors
Approved Judgment:
to CPR 24.5, he would and should have concluded that none of the 109 named defendants had any realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim at trial and that accordingly, NHL was entitled to a final injunction against those defendants.”
29. In TfL v Lee & PUs & Ors [2023] EWHC 402, Cavanagh J. was considering renewal of a PU injunction about roads and Just Stop Oil protesters. He ordered an expedited trial. He then considered the extension of the interim injunction. He accepted and adopted Freeman J.’s judgment on the earlier review and asked himself this question:
“20. … The real issue before me, therefore, is whether the evidence of events that have taken place since 31 October 2022 provides grounds for declining to extend the injunction on materially identical terms. 21. The answer is that there are no such grounds. The activities of JSO have continued, albeit with a change of tactics, and in my judgment the justification for interim injunctive relief to restrain unlawful activities on the JSO roads is as great as it has ever been.”
30. Since the extension of the HS2 interim injunction in May 2023 the Supreme Court has passed judgment in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies [2023] UKSC 47. This clarified that PU or newcomer injunctions can be granted on an interim or final basis subject to clear conditions and restraints. I summarised the guidance recently in Valero Energy v PUs & Bencher & Ors [2024] EWHC 134. I was considering both a summary judgment application and a final PU/named Defendants injunction. At paras. 57 – 60 I ruled thus:
“57. I conclude from the rulings in Wolverhampton that the 7 rulings in Canada Goose remain good law and that other factors have been added. To summarise, in summary judgment applications for a final injunction against unknown persons ("PUs") or newcomers, who are protesters of some sort, the following 13 guidelines and rules must be met for the injunction to be granted. These have been imposed because a final injunction against PUs is a nuclear option in civil law akin to a temporary piece of legislation affecting all citizens in England and Wales for the future so must be used only with due safeguards in place. 58. (A) Substantive Requirements Cause of action (1) There must be a civil cause of action identified in the claim form and particulars of claim. The usual quia timet (since he fears) action relates to the fear of torts such as trespass, damage to property, private or public nuisance, tortious interference with trade contracts, conspiracy with consequential damage and on-site criminal activity.
12
37
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online