HS2 Ltd & SSfT v Persons Unknown & Ors
Approved Judgment:
from interfering with national infrastructure, only one of which was in force when I last renewed the injunctions. Whether or not a protestor in future, entering phase 2A land on which no HS2 project construction is taking place or will ever again take place, but intent on causing loss by interfering with the effort to rewild or restore the land or to sell it, would be sufficient to justify a renewed injunction, will be a matter for another Judge dependent on the facts. I have no sufficient evidence before me which goes to show that the remaining 5 Defendants or any anti HS2 PUs wish to interfere with: rewilding or restoration, deconstruction of any HS2 construction, HS2 selling land back to previous or new owners or otherwise disposing of the purple or orange land. Quite the opposite. As the Claimants assert, many of the anti HS2 phase 2 protesters, who themselves consider that they have won, are engaged in supporting other causes. The situation is quite different for phase 1. There has been no question of any win for the anti HS2 protesters there. 45. I have carefully considered the evidence put before the Court by the Claimants. I summarised much of it, but not all, above. I also take into account the evidence accepted and found by Knowles J. Standing back, the current evidence consists of a recognition that the protestors feel that they have won in relation to stopping the construction on the purple land of phase 2A. Their motivation for using direct action against that has gone. Such future action will not delay any construction works. It is no longer a construction project on the purple land. In addition, the evidence of quia timet (what we fear) is watery, thin, scattered geographically (some of the relied on events were in London) and un-compelling. Naked ramblers, children setting up tented camps for a few hours, some graffiti and some anti-law/establishment groups are included, but these are hardly enough, in my judgment, to prove a substantial and real fear of imminent and serious harm through direct action on the purple land. I do not accept, even from experienced security experts, that the mere assertion of fear is enough. It must be logically based and it must be sufficiently evidenced. Nor do I consider that the postings of crowing or gloating by some protesters about their perceived success on phase 2A and the need to continue vaguely against HS2 generally, bites on the purple land sufficiently. The past and the recent evidence does however support the continued injunction covering the construction works in phase 1.
Damages not an adequate remedy
46. In my judgment the Claimants continue to show that damages would not be an adequate remedy in relation to their phase 1 construction work on the blue land. They have not shown that this threshold is still justified for the purple land upon which no construction is being carried out.
(B) Procedural Requirements - Identifying PUs 47.
23 In my judgment, in the draft injunction, the PUs are clearly and plainly identified by reference to: (a) the tortious conduct to be prohibited (and that conduct mirrors the 48
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online