Birmingham City Council v Afsar & Ors [2019] EWHC 1560 (QB) (18 June 2019)

Birmingham City Council v Afsar & Ors [2019] EWHC 1560 (QB) (18 June 2019)

The interim injunctions granted without notice were discharged due to serious breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure and procedural failures by the Council, including inadequate justification for proceeding without notice, failure to address the statutory threshold under s 12(3) HRA, and non-compliance with Practice Guidance. However, fresh interim injunctions were granted as the threshold for relief was met and the claimant was likely to succeed at trial in justifying restraint on the protests' conduct.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1560
Parties
Claimant: Birmingham City Council; Defendant: Mr Shakeel Afsar; Defendant: Ms Rosina Afsar; Defendant: Mr Amir Ahmed; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (civil) / Pre Trial, Return Date Hearing
Outcome
Existing interim injunctions discharged for procedural breaches; fresh interim injunctions granted pending trial; costs awarded to defendants for discharge, and to claimant for new injunctions.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Without Notice Applications, Freedom of Expression, Protest Law, Anti Social Behaviour, Disclosure Obligations, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Human Rights Education Law Local Government Law Interim Injunctions Without Notice Applications Freedom of Expression Protest Law +3 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 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Birmingham City Council

Claimant

Mr Shakeel Afsar

Defendant

Ms Rosina Afsar

Defendant

Mr Amir Ahmed

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (civil) / Pre Trial, Return Date Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim injunctions should be discharged for breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure
  2. 2 Whether fresh interim injunctions should be granted pending trial
  3. 3 Whether the Council's applications complied with procedural requirements for without notice injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunctions granted without notice were discharged due to serious breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure and procedural failures by the Council, including inadequate justification for proceeding without notice, failure to address the statutory threshold under s 12(3) HRA, and non-compliance with Practice Guidance. However, fresh interim injunctions were granted as the threshold for relief was met and the claimant was likely to succeed at trial in justifying restraint on the protests' conduct.

Court Disposition

Existing interim injunctions discharged for procedural breaches; fresh interim injunctions granted pending trial; costs awarded to defendants for discharge, and to claimant for new injunctions.

Orders

  • Discharge of injunctions granted on 31 May and 4 June 2019
  • Grant of fresh interim injunctions pending trial