(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.
60. I have read and take into account the cases setting out the historical growth of PU injunctions including Ineos Upstream v PUs [2019] EWCA Civ. 515, per Longmore LJ at paras. 18-34. I do not consider that extracts from the judgment are necessary here.
Applying the law to the facts 61.
When applying the law to the facts I take into account the interlocutory judgments of Bennathan J and Bourne J in this case. I apply the balance of probabilities. I treat the hearing as an ex-parte hearing at which the Claimants must prove their case and put forward the potential defences of the PUs and show why they have no realistic prospect of success.
(A) Substantive Requirements Cause of action
62. The pleaded claim is fear of trespass, crime and public and private nuisance at the 8 Sites and on the access roads thereto. In the event, as was found by Sweeting J, Bennathan J. and Bourne J. all 3 feared torts were committed in April 2022 and thereafter mainly at the Kingsbury site but also in Plymouth later on. In my judgment the claim as pleaded is sufficient on a quia timet basis.
Full and frank disclosure
63. By their approach to the hearing I consider that the Claimant and their legal team have evidenced providing full and frank disclosure.
Sufficient evidence to prove the claim
33 64. In my judgment the evidence shows that the Claimants have a good cause of action and fully justified fears that they face a high risk and an imminent threat that the remaining 17 named Defendants (who would not give undertakings) and/or that UPs will commit the pleaded torts of trespass and nuisance at the 8 Sites in connection with the 4 Organisations. I consider the phrase “in connection with” is broad and does not require membership of the 4 Organisations (if such exists), or proof of donation. It requires merely joining in with a protest organised by, encouraged by or at which one or more of the 4 Organisations were present or represented. The history of the invasive and dangerous protests in April 2022, despite the existence of the interim injunction made 94
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online