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)

The application for a final injunction was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence of a real and imminent risk that the defendants would return to Hackney and engage in further anti-social behaviour or public nuisance. The threshold for granting a quia timet injunction was not met, and the requirements of s.1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 were not satisfied at this stage.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2548 (QB)
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 After Hearing of 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 11 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 After Hearing of Application for Final Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a final injunction should be granted to prevent anti-social behaviour and/or public nuisance in Hackney by the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for an injunction under s.1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 are met
  3. 3 Whether there is a real and imminent risk justifying quia timet relief

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a final injunction was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence of a real and imminent risk that the defendants would return to Hackney and engage in further anti-social behaviour or public nuisance. The threshold for granting a quia timet injunction was not met, and the requirements of s.1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 were not satisfied at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application for final injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Paragraph 6 of the interim order dated 14 September 2021 is discharged
  • Consequential matters to be considered on 28 September 2021