HS2 (High Speed Two Ltd) v Elliott Cuciurean (D33) and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Ritchie |
| Judgment Date | 15 September 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2626 (KB) |
| Docket Number | QB 2022 BHM 000044 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2022] EWHC 2626 (KB)
Mr Justice Ritchie
QB 2022 BHM 000044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Birmingham Civil Justice Centre
M. Fry and B. Brett instructed by DLA PIPER Solicitors for the Claimants.
Adam Wagner instructed by ROBERT LIZAR Solicitors for the 33rd Defendant and others.
Hearing dates: 25 – 27 th July 2022
Sanctions hearing listed for 22 September 2022
This is a judgment delivered in advance of the sanctions hearing relating to the Defendant D33.
The Parties
The Claimants are constructing a high speed railway line in England for the benefit of the public in accordance with the will of Parliament.
The Defendant objects to the construction of the HS2 railway line and have taken direct action against the construction.
Bundles
For the issue within the committal claim which is the subject of this judgment I had the bundles from the main hearing which were: the hearing bundle, an authorities bundle, a supplementary authorities bundle, various cases handed up on paper, various late served witness statement from some, but not all, of the Defendants and some other documents including character references.
After an adjournment for the sanction decision for D33, I was provided with two skeleton arguments referring to case law but no bundle of authorities.
The Defendant issued an application dated 13 th September 2022 relating to privacy and seeking various orders.
Background
The background to the judgment is that 7 Defendants were alleged to be in breach of an injunction granted to the Claimants by Mr. Justine Cotter in April 2022. 6 admitted the pleaded breaches and I have imposed sanctions on them. The judgment concerning them is to be published after the adjourned hearing: HS2 and the Secretary of State for Transport v Harewood and ors [2022] EWHC *.
During the hearing in July the Defendant Curciurean asked for privacy in relation to some medical personal information which he wished to put before the Court in relation to his sanctions hearing. No notice of application was issued. With the express agreement of the Claimants I held a short private hearing with the Defendant and his counsel and solicitor at which the Defendant disclosed the alleged private medical information (the Private Information). I considered that information capable of engaging the Defendant's right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights and I adjourned that issue over for submissions in writing on procedure and to see if the further evidence which the Defendant indicated he wished to file would be filed and how that should be dealt with. I ordered the Parties to provide written submissions on the appropriate procedure by 24 August 2022 in preparation for the adjourned hearing listed for 22 September 2022.
Neither party complied with that order.
The Issues
The issues dealt with in this judgment are: (1) Should all or any part of the sanctions hearing be held in private? (2) Should the sanctions judgment and all or some of the evidence filed by the Defendant be partially kept private from the public? (3) Should further evidence be admitted for the Defendant and how should that be dealt with if served (4) Should reporting restrictions be imposed? (5) other more minor issues.
The land
This claim concerns the property at Cash's Pit Land which adjoins the A51 at Swinnerton, Staffordshire and is approximately 4 acres in size, rectangular in shape and contains a forest surrounded by farmers' fields, south of Stoke on Trent. It includes a thin strip of land adjoining the northern verge of the A51. I shall refer to the land as “CPL”.
Pleadings and chronology of the action
By a notice of application dated the 25th of March 2022 the two Claimants applied for possession of CPL together with a prohibitory and mandatory injunction and declarations and alternative service orders. The application was made against 59 named Defendants and various persons unknown.
The evidence in support of the application was provided in a witness statement of Richard Jordan dated the 23rd of March 2022 and in various other witness statements and affidavits.
By an order made by Mr. Justice Cotter on the 11th of April 2022 at a hearing which was attended by some of the Defendants and both of the Claimants the Judge ordered possession of CPL be granted to the Claimants and granted an injunction which was interlocutory and was to last until the trial or a further order was made in the case or until the 24th of October 2022 (the Cotter Injunction).
By paragraph 4a of the Cotter Injunction the relevant persons were forbidden from entering CPL or remaining there. By paragraph 4b the relevant persons were ordered not to enter CPL, not to interfere with the works at CPL, not to interfere with the fences or gates at CPL, not to damage the property of the Claimants at CPL or of their subcontractors and not to climb onto vehicles or machinery at CPL. By paragraph 4c various persons were ordered to cease tunnelling at CPL and not to encourage or assist tunnelling at CPL.
By paragraph five of the Cotter Injunction it was expressly stated that the Injunction did not prevent the exercise of existing rights of way over CPL or public highways or the rights of the statutory undertakers (service providers). The Injunction declared that the Claimants were entitled to possession of CPL and alternative service provisions were set out in the Injunction because many of the named Defendants to the Injunction had not provided postal or e-mail addresses or other methods of communication and had not instructed lawyers to accept service on their behalf. The various methods of service were proscribed and included affixing documentation to wooden stakes in the ground at CPL and putting documents to be served in the post box constructed by protesters at CPL and fixing copies of the documents to the entrance at CPL and publishing the documents on various websites. These various alternative service methods were deemed effective by the Injunction. In addition anyone affected by the Injunction was permitted to apply to vary but was required to notify the Claimants' solicitors 48 hours before any hearing of any such application to vary and to provide their names and addresses full service. A directions hearing was required in the Injunction as to the steps required in future.
By a Statement of Case also dated 8th of June 2022 and issued on the same day the Claimants asserted that the Defendant D33 and 6 others were in breach of the Cotter Injunction. The breaches were laid out extensively in the Statement of Claim together with the evidence in support of the assertions that the Defendants were in contempt of court. The Statement of Claim attached the Cotter Injunction dated 11th of April 2022 and a plan of the site of CPL.
By notice of application dated the 8th of June 2022 the Claimants applied for an urgent directions hearing for the future conduct of the claim for committal to prison of seven Defendants for breaches of the Injunction made by Mr. Justice Cotter.
On the 14th of June 2022 an order was made by this Court which dealt with the directions governing the application for committal to prison of the seven Defendants. I granted permission to amend the application notice and Statement of Case. I made orders for alternative service on the Defendants because they had not provided postal addresses or electronic addresses and had not instructed lawyers. The alternative service provisions in paragraph five of that directions order were for postal service, electronic service, service on those thought to be hiding in the tunnels under CPL, service on lawyers and service at websites. I also ordered at paragraph 11 that any Defendant who wished to rely on evidence at the final hearing should serve and file the evidence by the 27th of June 2022. Tying the permission to rely on evidence to the direction I gave at paragraph eight I ordered that the Defendants had to, by the 20th of June 2022, provide the Court and the Claimants' solicitors with a postal address or an e-mail address at which they could be served with documents relating to the proceedings. I also ordered that no evidence other than evidence filed in compliance with the directions order would be admitted at the hearing save with permission of the Court. An application would have to be made under CPR part 23 for such permission.
The committal hearing was listed for four days starting on the 25th of July 2022 in that directions order. The Defendants were required to attend the hearing in person. The Defendants were warned that if the Court, at the hearing, was satisfied that the Defendants or each of them had been served in accordance with the alternative service provisions in the order then the Court could proceed in the absence of those Defendants. I also ordered that evidence as set out in the witness statements filed by the parties would stand as evidence in chief at the committal hearing. I ordered the parties to file and serve bundles containing their evidence and any authorities by the 15th of July 2022 and any skeleton arguments by the 21st of July 2022.
On 25 th July at the hearing of the claim for committal to prison of the seven Defendants, the relevant Defendant did attend and was represented by solicitors and counsel. The Defendant D33 (Curciurean) admitted the pleaded breaches of the Cotter Injunction.
The Evidence in relation to the Defendants
The hearing of this claim for committal to prison of the 7 Defendants continued until the 27th of July and then only that part in relation to D33 was adjourned.
The witness evidence from the Claimants which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial