The London Borough of Hackney v Grant& Ors [2021] EWHC 2548 (QB) (22 September 2021)

The London Borough of Hackney v Grant& Ors [2021] EWHC 2548 (QB) (22 September 2021)

There is no longer sufficient evidence of a real and imminent risk that the defendants will return to Hackney and engage in anti-social behaviour or public nuisance. The requirements for a final injunction under s.1 of the 2014 Act or for quia timet relief are not met. The application is therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2548
Parties
Claimant: The London Borough of Hackney; First Defendant: Caul Grant; Thirty First Defendant: Namaste; Second Defendant: Paige Dennis; Eleventh Defendant: Campaign for Truth and Justice Limited; Tenth Defendant: Lovedown Campaigners
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Final Injunction / Judgment on Application for Final Injunction
Outcome
Application for final injunction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Anti Social Behaviour Injunctions, Public Nuisance, Protest Law, Service of Process, Quia Timet Injunctions
Civil Procedure Public Law Anti Social Behaviour Injunctions Public Nuisance Protest Law Service of Process Quia Timet Injunctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The London Borough of Hackney

Claimant

Caul Grant

First Defendant

Namaste

Thirty First Defendant

Paige Dennis

Second Defendant

Campaign for Truth and Justice Limited

Eleventh Defendant

Lovedown Campaigners

Tenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Final Injunction / Judgment on Application for Final Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a final injunction should be granted under s.1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and/or for public nuisance against the defendants to prevent future encampments and anti-social behaviour in Hackney.
  2. 2 Whether the risk of future anti-social behaviour or public nuisance is sufficiently real and imminent to justify a quia timet injunction.
  3. 3 Whether service of the claim form and injunction by alternative means was adequate.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no longer sufficient evidence of a real and imminent risk that the defendants will return to Hackney and engage in anti-social behaviour or public nuisance. The requirements for a final injunction under s.1 of the 2014 Act or for quia timet relief are not met. The application is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for final injunction dismissed.

Orders

  • Hackney's application for a final injunction is dismissed.
  • Paragraph 6 of the order dated 14 September 2021 is discharged.