HS2 Ltd & SSfT v Persons Unknown & Ors
Approved Judgment:
that there was no need for the continuation of the civil injunction. It was submitted that the Claimants had an alternative remedy through the Public Order Act . Thirdly, it was submitted that the Claimants had substantially broken their duty to the Court of full and frank disclosure, which is required during the life of an injunction which is anticipatory and against newcomers/PUs, because the Claimants had failed to inform the Court of the Prime Minister's announcement until finally making the application in March 2023. That failure, it was submitted, should lead the Court to refuse to deploy its equitable power to continue the injunction. Further, it was submitted that it was inappropriate for the Claimants to “warehouse” the action against the named Defendants and the PUs and to fail to seek a final hearing. It was submitted that warehousing is contrary to the Civil Procedure Rules and is an abuse of process. In addition, D6 submitted that the claim against D6 should be struck out because the Claimants now admitted that the Claimants had no continuing cause of action against D6 or any good reason to pursue the injunction any further. Alternatively, D6 submitted that the Claimants should have issued a notice of discontinuance under CPR Part 38 which would have led to a liability for costs under CPR rule 38.6, unless the Court ordered otherwise. No notice of discontinuance having been issued D6 submitted that the claim against D6 should be struck out. In my judgment, there have been clear and obvious changes which are material to the interim injunction. Firstly, phase 2A to Crewe is no longer going ahead. Nor is 2B to Manchester and Leeds. This means that no construction will take place on the purple and the orange land. This takes away the primary objective of the anti-HS2 protesters in relation to that land. Secondly, there are new criminal offences which will deter and punish protesters taking direct action, with penalties including imprisonment. Thirdly, some HS2 protesters have been imprisoned for breaching the injunction. Fourthly, no protester has applied for a final hearing. Applying the law to the facts 40. I shall consider each of the requirements for granting and, where necessary, continuing an interim injunction in turn. Changes to material matters 39. In this case there is a civil cause of action identified in the claim form and particulars of claim. A quia timet (since he fears) action is pleaded and relates to the fear of torts such as trespass, damage to property, private and public nuisance, potential tortious interference with trade contracts and on-site criminal activity. The Claimants have proven, to the satisfaction of previous judges, under the enhanced test for injunctive remedies against PUs, that previous torts (and potentially crimes) have been committed on HS2 land and proven that their fears were justified. Previous interim injunctions have been granted routewide. This condition is satisfied. (A) Substantive Requirements - Cause of action 41.
21
46
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online