HS2 Ltd & SSfT v Persons Unknown & Ors
Approved Judgment:
be a "compelling justification" for the injunction against PUs to protect the claimant's civil rights. In my judgment this also applies when there are PUs and named defendants. (6) The Court must take into account the balancing exercise required by the Supreme Court in DPP v Ziegler [2021] UK.SC 23, if the PUs' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (for instance under Articles 10(2) and 11(2)) are engaged and restricted by the proposed injunction. The injunction must be necessary and proportionate to the need to protect the Claimants' right. Damages not an adequate remedy (7) For the Court to grant a final injunction against PUs the claimant must show that damages would not be an adequate remedy. (B) Procedural Requirements - Identifying PUs (8) The PUs must be clearly and plainly identified by reference to: (a) the tortious conduct to be prohibited (and that conduct must mirror the torts claimed in the Claim Form), and (b) clearly defined geographical
boundaries, if that is possible. The terms of the injunction
(9) The prohibitions must be set out in clear words and should not be framed in legal technical terms (like "tortious" for instance). Further, if and in so far as it seeks to prohibit any conduct which is lawful viewed on its own, this must also be made absolutely clear and the claimant must satisfy the Court that there is no other more proportionate way of protecting its rights or those of others. The prohibitions must match the claim (10) The prohibitions in the final injunctions must mirror the torts claimed (or feared) in the Claim Form. Geographic boundaries (11) The prohibitions in the final injunctions must be defined by clear geographic boundaries, if that is possible. Temporal limits - duration (12) The duration of the final injunction should be only such as is proven to be reasonably necessary to protect the claimant's legal rights in the light of the evidence of past tortious activity and the future feared (quia timet) tortious activity. Service (13) Understanding that PUs by their nature are not identified, the proceedings, the evidence, the summary judgment application and the draft order must be served by alternative means which have been considered and sanctioned by the Court. The applicant must, under the Human Rights Act 1998 S.12(2), show that it has taken all practicable
steps to notify the respondents. The right to set aside or vary
14
39
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online