Thurrock Council v Stokes & Ors [2022] EWHC 1998 (QB) (27 July 2022)

Thurrock Council v Stokes & Ors [2022] EWHC 1998 (QB) (27 July 2022)

The Court held that Thurrock Council failed to ensure procedural fairness by not personally serving any Defendant, inadequately notifying Defendants of the case against them, and attempting to rely on evidence not properly particularised in Claim Summary Letters. The mass claim against over 100 Defendants was unsuitable for the Part 8 procedure. The Court excluded evidence not notified in Claim Summary Letters and scrutinised the evidence against each remaining Defendant. Injunctions were only granted where the evidence, as properly notified, justified relief; otherwise, claims were dismissed or discontinued.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1998 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Thurrock Council; Defendant: Martin Stokes; Defendant: Other named Defendants (2)-(107); Defendant: Persons Unknown (108)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (civil Injunction) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Partial grant of injunctions; claims against some Defendants dismissed or discontinued; application to rely on additional evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Alternative Service, Procedural Fairness, Anti Social Behaviour, Unauthorised Encampments, Evidence (hearsay)
Civil Procedure Local Government Law Planning Law Human Rights Injunctions Alternative Service Procedural Fairness Anti Social Behaviour +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thurrock Council

Claimant

Martin Stokes

Defendant

Other named Defendants (2)-(107)

Defendant

Persons Unknown (108)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (civil Injunction) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Thurrock Council is entitled to final injunctions against the named Defendants for unauthorised encampments and related conduct
  2. 2 Whether service and procedural requirements were met for each Defendant
  3. 3 Whether evidence relied upon was properly notified and fair

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Thurrock Council failed to ensure procedural fairness by not personally serving any Defendant, inadequately notifying Defendants of the case against them, and attempting to rely on evidence not properly particularised in Claim Summary Letters. The mass claim against over 100 Defendants was unsuitable for the Part 8 procedure. The Court excluded evidence not notified in Claim Summary Letters and scrutinised the evidence against each remaining Defendant. Injunctions were only granted where the evidence, as properly notified, justified relief; otherwise, claims were dismissed or discontinued.

Court Disposition

Partial grant of injunctions; claims against some Defendants dismissed or discontinued; application to rely on additional evidence refused.

Orders

  • Final injunctions granted against certain named Defendants as specified in the judgment and appendix.
  • Claims against Defendants not properly served or notified, or where evidence was insufficient, dismissed or discontinued.