![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Wensley & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors [2014] EWHC 3086 (Ch) (28 August 2014) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/3086.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 3086 (Ch) |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
1 Bridge Street West Manchester M60 9DJ |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
MR THOMAS ANDREW WENSLEY AND 11 OTHERS | Claimants | |
- and - | ||
PERSONS UNKNOWN AND OTHERS | Defendants |
____________________
101 Finsbury Pavement London EC2A 1ER
Tel No: 020 7421 6131 Fax No: 020 7421 6134
Web: www.merrillcorp.com/mls Email: mlstape@merrillcorp.com
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR SIMON POOK (solicitor of Robert Lizars Solicitors, agents for Harrison Grant) appeared on behalf of Ms Tina Rothery, added as the Third Defendant
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"… persons entering or remaining without consent of the claimants, or any of them, on any of six identified incinerator sites ...."
That authority is distinguishable from the present case in that the Vice-Chancellor was dealing with a proposed trespass associated with an imminent global day of action against incinerators which, it was envisaged, would take place on or around a specific, and identifiable, date in July 2003. Here, what is sought is an injunction, apparently on a basis unlimited in point of time. It may be that the propriety of granting such an injunction will have to be considered at the return date. I have myself earlier this year in a case, United Utilities Water Plc v Persons Unknown, decided on 20 June 2014, granted an interim injunction, pending trial or further order, which in that case was limited to a maximum duration of six months. The propriety of granting an injunction unlimited in point of time will fall to be considered on the return date. What I am satisfied of is that I have jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction against threatened acts of trespass over until a return day of the full hearing of this possession claim.