HS2 Ltd & SSfT v Persons Unknown & Ors
Approved Judgment:
26 There is no summary judgment application made by the Claimants. I set out the law above and in particular highlighted in bold passages from the Supreme Court on the nature of these injunctions concerning private land against PUs. I have carefully considered whether D6 was right, in submissions, to assert that such claims, against named Defendants (as distinct from PUs only claim) should be brought to trial with reasonable expedition. It was submitted that claims against named Defendants should not be left on the shelf or in the warehouse. However, no Defendant has made use of the power granted to them in the May 2023 Order I made to bring the case to trial. I take into account that it is normally the Claimants’ responsibility to follow through to trial with the claim which they issued. However, in claims for possession of land where a final order for possession has been granted and the trespassers have been removed, there is no longer a need for another order. What then should be done about the interim injunction? Should it be brought to a final hearing? This would usually be answered: “yes”. But in claims against PUs only and claims against named defendants and PUs, different factors apply. The Claimants have been and are required to keep the list of Defendants under review. When some have been (1) evicted, or (2) proven in contempt and imprisoned, or (3) have withdrawn or truthfully disavowed their previous intention to engage in unlawful direct action, the Claimants have properly released them from the action with this Court’s permission. Others have given undertakings. Procedurally, it would be a nonsense to take the actions to a final hearing for a final injunction, based on the past tortious actions of the evicted ex-Defendants and proven contemnors, who have already been released as parties. As for the claims against the 5 remaining Defendants, if they had wished to be released from the action, they could have applied to bring the action to final determination, or asked the Claimants to be released, but have not. I see little point in requiring the Claimants to go to trial against them when the basis remains quia timet, only to have them submit at trial, that the released ex- Defendants were the tortfeasors, not them. The real mischief being addressed is the Claimants’ need for protection from the PUs. That is fully satisfied on a continuing 51 accordance with CPR r.38.3, which sets out the procedure and is mandatory for discontinuance. A form N279 notice is required. In this case I do not consider that such formality assists. Of the 65 named Defendants, 60 have now been removed. It has been efficient to remove and add Defendants at the various reviews. So, to the extent that it is necessary, I grant the Claimants relief from sanctions and expressly permit the Claimants to delete D6 as a Defendant to the claim and the injunction without the need for a notice. D6 had notice in the application notice anyway. No other Defendant has objected. I also bear in mind that this Court could have removed D6 as a party at the start of the hearing and then heard argument on whether he should have been heard at all on the substantive issues, but I considered that it was helpful and just to have a voice for the Defendants and the PUs at the hearing. I therefore dispense with the need for the Claimants to file a Notice of Discontinuance pursuant to CPR 38.3(1)(a) in respect of D6 and make an order under CPR 6.28 dispensing with service of any Notice of Discontinuance.
Should the claim be brought to a final hearing? 58.
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online