HS2 Ltd & SSfT v Persons Unknown & Ors
Approved Judgment:
local authorities seek to protect), is usually short term and liable, if terminated, just to be repeated on a nearby site, or by different Travellers on the same site, so that the usual processes of eviction, or even injunction against named parties, are an inadequate means of protection. (vii ) For all those reasons the injunction (even when interim in form) is sought for its medium to long term effect even if time- limited, rather than as a means of holding the ring in an emergency, ahead of some later trial process, or even a renewed interim application on notice (and following service) in which any defendant is expected to be identified, let alone turn up and contest. (viii) Nor is the injunction designed (like a freezing injunction, search order, Norwich Pharmacal or Bankers Trust order or even an anti-suit injunction) to protect from interference or abuse, or to enhance, some related process of the court. Its purpose, and no doubt the reason for its recent popularity, is simply to provide a more effective, possibly the only effective, means of vindication or protection of relevant rights than any other sanction currently available to the claimant local authorities. 144. Cumulatively those distinguishing features leave us in no doubt that the injunction against newcomers is a wholly new type of injunction with no very closely related ancestor from which it might be described as evolutionary offspring, although analogies can be drawn, as will appear, with some established forms of order. It is in some respects just as novel as were the new types of injunction listed in sub-paragraph (viii) above, and it does not even share their family likeness of being developed to protect the integrity and effectiveness of some related process of the courts.” (My emboldening).
Furthermore at para. 167 they ruled that:
“167. These considerations lead us to the conclusion that, although the attempts thus far to justify them are in many respects unsatisfactory, there is no immoveable obstacle in the way of granting injunctions against newcomer Travellers, on an essentially without notice basis, regardless of whether in form interim or final, either in terms of jurisdiction or principle.”
35. It is clear from this passage that quia timet injunctions against PUs, relating to private land owned or possessed by a claimant, are different beasts from old fashion injunctions against known defendants which need to be taken to trial. They do not “hold the ring pending trial”. They are an end in themselves for the short or the medium term and may
17
42
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online