Hampshire Waste Services Ltd & Ors v Persons Intending To Trespass And Or Trespassing Upon Incinerator Sites

This is an application without notice made by the four claimants, each of whom is a member of the Onyx Environmental group of companies and owns and operates one or more of the incinerator stations specified in the claim form. The nature of the problem and the relief the claimants seek is clearly explained in the witness statement of Mr. R.C. Hunt made today. In para.3 of that document he explains:

Previous global days of action against and/or invasions of incinerator service stations have included the following: in

In his witness statement, Mr. Hunt explains why any incursion inevitably leads to a shut down of the plant for health and safety reasons with considerable consequential loss and disruption to community facilities. He also describes how the activities of the protesters lead to danger not only to themselves but to others.

In para.29 of his witness statement Mr. Hunt describes the Internet and other publications which indicate that next

There can be little doubt that if the plant of one of the claimants is invaded on 14th July that claimant will suffer substantial and irrecoverable damage. But for one matter, the case for an interim injunction to restrain threatened trespass to the property of the claimants and each of them is clearly made out.

The matter to which I refer is that the claimants are unable to name any of the protesters who might be involved.

A similar problem arose in the case involving the Harry Potter book which has recently been published. In that case the evidence clearly showed that a person or persons unknown had illicitly obtained copies of the books some weeks in advance of publication and were trying to sell them or parts of them to the media. For the reasons I gave in my judgment on that occasion, I granted relief against defendants described as

As I said in para.19:

Counsel for the claimants submits that the position is in essence the same here. Subject to two points on the suggested description, I agree. The two points are that it seems to me to be wrong that the description of the defendant should involve a legal conclusion such as is implicit in the use of the word "trespass". Similarly, it seems to me to be undesirable to use a description such as "intending to trespass" because that depends on the subjective intention of the individual which is not necessarily known to the outside world and in particular the claimants, and is susceptible of change.

It seems to me, therefore - and counsel, as I understood it, accepted the proposed amendments - that the description of the defendants should be changed, and the form that I would propose to use is as follows: "Persons entering or remaining without the consent of the claimants, or any of them, on any of the incinerator sites at", and then addresses 1 to 6 are set out, and concluding "in connection with the 'Global Day of Action Against Incinerators' (or similarly described event) on or around 14 July 2003". In principle I am prepared to grant or consider the grant of an injunction in which defendants are described in those terms.

As I have indicated, the merits of the claim appear to me to be substantially in favour of the grant of an injunction. The point that at one stage led me to hesitate was the question whether, if the criminal law and the remedy in damages are inadequate, is a remedy by way of interim injunction any better? Counsel has satisfied me that it is not a ground for refusing the injunction that it might prove difficult to enforce. I accept that submission. There are, I think, a number of authorities to the effect that the court will not, if it sees a clear case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, withhold it on the grounds of any perceived difficulty in its enforcement.

The other issues arise in relation to the form of order and

The proposal in the draft order, which is amplified in the evidence of Mr. Hunt, is in this these terms:

The practice direction to CPR 6.8 provides in para.9.1:

The first of those subparagraphs is clearly satisfied by the facts of this case. As counsel fairly pointed out, no steps have been taken to serve by any other permitted means because the point has not yet arisen; that does not appear to me to be any reason to withhold the order for effectively substituted service which she seeks.

The other points on the form of the order which I should mention are, first, that it is required to include the crossundertaking in damages which is now set out in schedule 2, para.4. Second, that it should provide, as it now does, that any person may apply to the court at any time to vary or discharge this order but if he wishes to do so he must first inform the claimants' solicitors in writing at least 12 hours beforehand. Finally, the form of order proffered contained as a blank the normal return date for such an application. In the nature of these proceedings that seems to me to be unnecessary. What is required is that any person who wishes to do so should be able promptly to apply for the order to be discharged, which I have allowed for, and, provided that is included, I see no purpose in a formal return date on a claim such as this.

For all the reasons I have endeavoured to explain, I consider that this is a proper case in which to make an order against defendants so described, and on the terms which are set out in the draft. I will accordingly, invite the associate to draw up the order in that form.