Thurrock Council v Martin Stokes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Nicklin |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 1998 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2019-002738 |
[2022] EWHC 1998 (QB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Nicklin
Case No: QB-2019-002738
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Caroline Bolton and Natalie Pratt (instructed by LB Barking & Dagenham Legal Services) for the Claimant
No defendant attended or was represented at the hearing
Hearing dates: 25–29 October 2021
Approved Judgment
This judgment is divided into the following sections:
A: Introduction
| Section | Paragraphs | |
| A. | Introduction | [2] |
| B. | Background and Procedural History | [3] |
| C. | The Defendants to the Claim | [4] – [13] |
| D. | The evidence | [14] – [21] |
| E. | Order that Thurrock provide details of the claim to each of the named Defendants | [24] – [28] |
| F. | Thurrock's Application that it be permitted to rely upon incidents and evidence beyond that which had been notified to the named Defendants | [29] – [52] |
| G. | The claims against the remaining active Defendants and findings of fact | [53] – [363] |
| (1) | Martin Stokes | [54] – [69] |
| (11) | Brian Murphy | [71] – [92] |
| (12) | Brian Stokes | [93] – [99] |
| (13) | Brian Stokes (2nd) | [100] – [108] |
| (14) | Charles Lansky | [109] – [115] |
| (15) | Charlie McDonagh | [116] – [120] |
| (16) | Clarence Bulmer | [121] – [127] |
| (18) | Danny Hallissey | [128] – [138] |
| (22) | Declan McLeod | [139] – [146] |
| (23) | Dennis Doherty | [147] – [153] |
| (25) | Edward Lowther | [154] – [157] |
| (30) | Ellen McDonagh | [158] – [162] |
| (31) | John Bryan | [163] – [167] |
| (32) | John Connors | [168] – [175] |
| (33) | John Keenan | [176] – [183] |
| (34) | John McDonagh | [184] – [189] |
| (35) | John O'Brian | [190] – [193] |
| (37) | John Stokes | [194] – [197] |
| (40) | Lawrence Connors | [198] – [204] |
| (41) | Luke Connors | [205] – [208] |
| (44) | Mark Ryan | [209] – [214] |
| (46) | Martin Lawrence | [215] – [220] |
| (49) | Martin McDonagh | [221] – [228] |
| (50) | Martin McDonagh (2nd) | [229] – [231] |
| (53) | Mary Boland | [232] – [240] |
| (55) | Mary Mullane | [241] – [243] |
| (60) | Michaela McKenzie | [244] – [247] |
| (63) | Andrew Cash | [248] – [256] |
| (64) | Antoney Doherty | [257] – [267] |
| (65) | Antoney Doherty (2nd) | [268] |
| (66) | Barry Smith | [269] – [271] |
| (67) | Fred Mason | [272] – [281] |
| (69) | Hughie Mason | [282] – [287] |
| (71) | Michael McKay | [288] – [290] |
| (72) | William Connors | [291] – [293] |
| (74) | Josie Doran | [294] – [296] |
| (78) | Nicola Tomlinson | [297] – [302] |
| (80) | Patrick Connors | [303] – [306] |
| (81) | Patrick McDonagh | [310] – [313] |
| (82)/(83) | Patrick McDonagh (2nd) and (3rd) | [314] – [316] |
| (84) | Patrick McDonagh (4th) | [317] – [319] |
| (86) | Patrick Stokes | [320] – [322] |
| (87) | Patrick Stokes (2nd) | [323] – [327] |
| (94) | Robert McDonagh | [328] – [330] |
| (97) | Sidney Smith | [331] – [337] |
| (98) | Simon Connolly | [338] – [342] |
| (101) | Thomas Keenan | [343] – [345] |
| (102) | Tom Ward | [346] – [350] |
| (104) | William O'Donoghue | [351] – [356] |
| (105) | William Stokes | [357] – [359] |
| (106) | Winifred McDonagh | [360] – [363] |
| H. | Should an injunction be granted against the Defendants or any of them? | [364] – [427] |
| (1) | Terms of the injunction sought against the named Defendants | [366] – [368] |
| (2) | The legal framework | [369] – [394] |
| (a) s.187B Town & Country Planning Act 1990 | [369] – [390] | |
| (b) s.222 Local Government Act 1970 | [391] – [392] | |
| (c) Other relevant provisions | [393] – [394] | |
| (3) | Further evidence relevant to remedy | [395] – [410] |
| (4) | Submissions | [411] |
| (5) | Decision | [412] – [427] |
| I. | Conclusion and next steps | [428] – [430] |
This judgment follows the final hearing of a Part 8 Claim brought by Thurrock Council (“Thurrock”) against 107 named defendants. It determines to what, if any, relief Thurrock is entitled following an adjudication of its claim against the named defendants. A claim has also been brought against “Persons Unknown” (without any description). The “persons unknown” claim was adjourned pending the Court of Appeal decision in LB Barking & Dagenham v Persons Unknown [2022] 2 WLR 946.
B: Background and Procedural History
The background to the claims, brought by various local authorities, against both named individuals and “persons unknown” is set out in two previous judgments: [2021] EWHC 1201 (QB) (“the First Judgment”) and [2021] EWHC 2648 (QB) (“the Second Judgment”). The procedural history of this claim is given in [72]–[81] in the Second Judgment, but in summary:
i) The Claim was commenced by Part 8 Claim Form on 31 July 2019.
ii) On that same date, the Court granted an alternative service order without notice to the Defendants (see [10] below).
iii) An interim injunction order was granted on 3 September 2019 against 89 named defendants and “persons unknown”. The order imposed a borough wide prohibition on encampments and/or fly-tipping. The interim injunction contained a power of arrest.
iv) The interim injunction contained no return date nor any directions for a further hearing. As a result, the proceedings were allowed by Thurrock to become dormant for a substantial period, until the claim was brought together as part of the Cohort of claims that led ultimately to the First Judgment.
v) As a result of that judgment, the power of arrest included in the interim injunction was discharged: see [79]–[82] and [245] of the First Judgment.
C: The Defendants to the Claim
The Part 8 Claim Form was issued on 31 July 2019. Originally, the claim was brought against 107 named Defendants. In summary, the claim alleges that each of the named Defendants has (at various places and times) formed at least one encampment on land situated within Thurrock's administrative area that has had “ a detrimental impact on the borough's residents and businesses, as well as the enjoyment of public open spaces and sporting grounds.”
In the Claim Form, Thurrock brought the claim for an interim and final injunction under s.222 Local Government Act 1972 and/or s.187B Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and/or s.1 Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
Thurrock has not pursued all the named Defendants to the final hearing. Several Defendants have fallen away as the claim has progressed. The table in the Appendix lists all the originally named Defendants and explains the status of the claim against each Defendant. The claims against the greyed-out defendants have been discontinued at some point, some as recently as the trial of the claim. The claims against 12 Defendants were discontinued before the grant of the interim injunction on 3 September 2019. 16 further claims were abandoned between the grant of the interim injunction and the trial. Thurrock sought permission to discontinue or abandoned a further 27 claims at trial. At the conclusion of the trial, and removing duplicate Defendants, there remained 51 active individual Defendants against whom Thurrock sought a final injunction.
None of the 107 named Defendants responded to the claim, whether by filing acknowledgement of service or otherwise. None has taken part in the proceedings. As the claim is made by way of Part 8, there is no question of Thurrock being granted judgment in default or summary judgment. Even if either of those routes to a judgment without a trial were available, it would not mean that Thurrock would automatically be granted an injunction. As a discretionary remedy, the Court would always scrutinise whether any injunction ought to be granted, and if so in what terms.
The fact that no named Defendant has participated in the proceedings presents some difficulties, and it also raises some questions.
The first issue of concern is whether the Claim Form has actually been received by each of the Defendants. Thurrock's claim is that each of the named Defendants is a member of the Gypsy or Traveller communities and that, therefore, they threaten to form further unauthorised encampments on land. Service of legal documents on members of such communities presents some challenges. Unless the Court permits another method, a Claim Form is required to be served personally on a defendant to a civil claim who is an individual.
Largely anticipating the difficulties of personally serving a Claim Form on a largely itinerant community, on 31 July 2019, Thurrock obtained an alternative service order, without notice to the Defendants, the material parts of which provided:
“In the event that the Claimant is unable to personally serve the 1st to 107th Defendants, pursuant to CPR 6.14 and 6.15 the Claimant shall be permitted to serve any such Defendants by leaving a copy (as opposed to an original) of the application notice, claim form, draft order and supporting evidence in a clear transparent envelope and affixing the same to a caravan, mobile home or other vehicle, or to the front door of any residential premises which in each case is reasonable (sic) believed to be owned or occupied by the said Defendants, or by putting such copy documents through the letter box of any such residential premises. Any such copy documents served by this method will be deemed served the second working day after service of the application notice and claim form.”
Thurrock has obtained and filed witness statements from the process servers who served the Claim Form (and other documents) on the named Defendants. The evidence demonstrates that not one of the 107 named defendants was served personally. That statistic is striking and surprising, but also troubling. I have become increasingly concerned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waverley Borough Council v Anthony Martin Gray
...familiar American Cyanamid test: Basingstoke & Deane BC v Loveridge [2018] EWHC 2228 (QB). 22 In Thurrock Council v Stokes and Ors [2022] EWHC 1998 (QB) At [388], Nicklin J considered the Court of Appeal's decision in Bromley LBC v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 12, and noted that: “ The......