HS2 Ltd & SSfT v Persons Unknown & Ors
Approved Judgment:
(14) The PUs must be given the right to apply to set aside or vary the injunction on shortish notice. Review (15) Even a final injunction involving PUs is not totally final. Provision must be made for reviewing the injunction in the future. The regularity of the reviews depends on the circumstances. Thus such injunctions are "Quasi-final" not wholly final. 59. Costs and undertakings may be relevant in final injunction cases but the Supreme Court did not give guidance upon these matters.”
31. Before me is a quia timet interim injunction. The Claimants had to and still have to prove a real and imminent risk of serious harm caused by tortious or criminal activity on their land, see Canada Goose v PUs [2020] EWCA Civ. 303, per Sir Terence Etherton MR at para. 82(3) (approved in Wolverhampton ). 32. Drawing these authorities together, on a review of an interim injunction against PUs and named Defendants, this Court is not starting de novo. The Judges who have previously made the interim injunctions have made findings justifying the interim injunctions. It is not the task of the Court on review to query or undermine those. However, it is vital to understand why they were made, to read and assimilate the findings, to understand the sub-strata of the quia timet, the reasons for the fear of unlawful direct action. Then it is necessary to determine, on the evidence, whether anything material has changed. If nothing material has changed, if the risk still exists as before and the claimant remains rightly and justifiably fearful of unlawful attacks, the extension may be granted so long as procedural and legal rigour has been observed and fulfilled. 33. On the other hand, if material matters have changed, the Court is required to analyse the changes, based on the evidence before it, and in the full light of the past decisions, to determine anew, whether the scope, details and need for the full interim injunction should be altered. To do so, the original thresholds for granting the interim injunction still apply. 34. In relation to the issue of whether final quia timet injunctions can be granted against PUs, the Court of Appeal in Canda Goose ruled that they could not be granted (para. 89) in a protester case against persons unknown who were not parties at the date of the final order, since a final injunction operated only between the parties to the proceedings. The Supreme Court in Wolverhampton overruled this decision. At para. 134 they together stated:
“134. Although we do not doubt the correctness of the decision in Canada Goose, we are not persuaded by the reasoning at paras 89-93, which we summarised at para 103 above. In addition to the criticisms made by the Court of Appeal which we have summarised at para 107
15
40
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online