Sheffield City Council v Alice Fairhall, (2) Simon Crump, (3) Rebecca Hammond, (4) Alison Teal, (5) David Dillner, (6) Calvin Payne, (7) Paul Brooke, (8) Graham Turnbull, (9) Robin Ridley (10) Persons Unknown Being (i) Persons Entering any Safety Zone Erected Around a Tree and/or (ii) Deliberately Seeking to Prevent the Erection of or to Interfere Physically with or with the Use of any Safety Zone Around a Tree and/or (iii) Remaining within any Safety Zone After it is Erected and/or (iv) Knowingly Leaving any Vehicle in any Safety Zone or Intentionally Placing a Vehicle in a Position so as to Prevent the Erection of a Safety Zone and/or (v) Preventing Delaying or Slowing Down (for More than 20 Minutes in any 24 Hours (Whether Individually or as Part of any Group)) any Contractors (Engaged
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | His Honour Judge,Robinson |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 1793 (QB) |
| Date | 12 July 2018 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: D92LS739 |
[2018] EWHC 1793 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT REGISTRY
The Law Courts
50 West Bar
Sheffield
S3 8PH
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Robinson sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Case No: D92LS739
Katharine Holland QC and Yaaser Vanderman (instructed by Sheffield City Council) for the Claimant
Owen Greenhall (instructed by Lloyds PR) for the 4 th, 5 th and 7 th Defendants
Paul Powlesland (instructed by Lloyds PR) for the 6th Defendant
Hearing dates: 11, 12 July 2018
Introduction
On 15 August 2017 Males J handed down judgment following a trial. He determined that the Claimant was entitled to certain injunctive relief. The subject matter of the trial was the felling of trees in Sheffield. The application before me follows on from decisions made by Males J. His judgment can be found at Sheffield City Council v Fairhall & Others [2017] EWHC 2121 (QB) (“ Fairhall”)
By way of introduction to this application I can do no better than quote paragraph 1 of his Judgment:
“1. The felling of trees in Sheffield is highly controversial. The city council insists that it is entitled to fell trees, including in some cases healthy trees, in performance of its statutory powers and duties to maintain the highway. It says that objectors who take action which prevents such felling from going ahead are acting unlawfully and must be restrained by an injunction. The objectors maintain that they are exercising a right of peaceful protest intended to cause the council to think again. They want the council to find alternative ways of maintaining the highway which do not involve the felling of healthy trees which, they say, add significantly to the environment, wildlife, air quality and quality of life of the people of Sheffield.”
I also wish to associate myself with the observations of Males J concerning the neutrality of the Judiciary in matters such as these. I also express no view, one way or the other, as to the merits of the Claimant's tree felling programme or the objectors' campaign, for the reasons he gave at paragraph 7 of his Judgment.
The duration of the injunction granted by Males J was limited in time. It is due to expire at 23.59 hours on 25 July 2018.
The injunction granted by Males J was directed to what he described as “direct action” essentially in and around the “safety zone” as defined. The definition in the order is in these terms:
“a safety zone is that area delineated by barriers erected on the public highway around a tree to be felled.”
By this application the Claimant seeks to extend the duration of the injunctive relief and also to adjust the terms of the injunction order in two principal respects. First to amend the definition of “safety zone”. Second to add additional restrictions to prevent what the Claimant says are actions which also interfere with tree felling activities.
Males J has released this application to me, sitting as a Judge of the High Court pursuant to Section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. However, Males J remains in overall control of this litigation.
Four of the Defendants have been represented by Counsel. The other five Defendants are represented by Lloyds PR Solicitors. Two of those Defendants are out of the country. The remaining three named Defendants have attended court during some or all of these current proceedings.
In respect of the four Defendants who are represented by Counsel, the parties have come to terms. A form of order detailing injunctive relief has been prepared in draft. I am grateful to Counsel for the Claimant and for the four Counsel-represented Defendants for their efforts, which took all of yesterday and some of this morning. I commend their efforts. The result strikes a fair and proportionate balance between the competing interests of those parties. It will govern the relations between the parties for a period of about 18 months, until 25 January 2020. The form of order agreed, insofar as it deals with injunctive relief, is set out below:
The Defendants must not from 26 July 2018 until 23:59 on 25 January 2020:
a. Enter any safety zone erected around a tree; and/or
b. Deliberately seek: (i) to prevent the erection of; or, (ii) to interfere physically with or with the use of any safety zone around a tree (which prohibition shall (without limitation) include the following acts:
• Moving, lifting, pushing, pulling, damaging or destroying any features demarcating the safety zone or climbing upon such features;
• Placing or throwing items inside of the safety zone or attaching persons or property attached to persons to any part of the safety zone or features demarcating the safety zone);
c. Remain within any safety zone after it is erected; and/or
d. Knowingly leave any vehicle in any safety zone or intentionally place a vehicle in a position so as to prevent the erection of a safety zone; and/or
e. Prevent, delay or slow down (for more than 20 minutes in any 24 hours (whether individually or as part of any group)) any contractors (engaged in accessing, egressing or creating any safety zone) in their use of any public highway which is the subject of a road closure in connection with tree works within the administrative area of the City of Sheffield;
For the avoidance of any doubt, (i) no Defendant shall slow down vehicles within a single road closure in the administrative area of Sheffield City Council on more than one occasion in any 24-hour period and (ii) in relation to the actions of the Defendants (including Persons Unknown) as a whole or any combination thereof, there shall be no slowing down of any of the said contractors in a single road closure for more than 20 minutes in any 24-hour period; and/or
f. Encourage, aid, counsel, direct or facilitate anybody else to any of the matters in paragraphs a) to e) above including by posting social media messages. For the avoidance of doubt, this prohibition does not include any general words of support or approval for the tree campaign in the administrative area of the City of Sheffield;
within the area shown edged red on the plan attached to this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vastint Leeds B.v (a company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands) v Persons Unknown Entering or Remaining Without the Consent of the Claimant on Land and Buildings Comprising Part of a Development Site Known as the Former Tetley Brewery Site, Leeds
...mind have been used in the order. Morgan J referred to this in Ineos at [122]. See, for example, Sheffield City Council v. Fairhall [2018] EWHC 1793 (QB). 11 Gee, Commercial Injunctions, 6 th ed (2016) at [2–035]. See also Proctor v. Bayley (1889) 42 ChD 390 at 398. 12 In this case, Vastint......