RGCM Ltd v Lockwood & Ors

Summary judgment may be granted where the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason for a trial. A final quia timet injunction requires proof of imminent danger, meaning a strong probability that the defendant will breach the claimant’s rights unless restrained, together with harm for which damages would be inadequate. An injunction against persons unknown may properly exclude those entering with the claimant’s consent or under lawful authority. The court may determine an application without a further hearing where a hearing would add expense without useful purpose, particularly where the matter has already been heard publicly and on notice.

RGCM Limited, a construction company in possession of three Leeds development sites, sought final injunctive relief against Adam Lockwood and persons unknown following repeated trespasses by urban explorers. An interim injunction had been granted ex parte and continued at a return hearing before Arnold J. No defendant appeared at the return hearing or sought to vary or discharge that order.

The claimant applied for summary judgment without a further hearing. The issues were whether the procedural requirements for summary judgment were met, whether a final injunction should be granted, and how the order should address persons entering the sites with consent or lawful authority.

1. Summary judgment. Permission was granted under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 24.4(1)(i), and summary judgment was entered under rule 24.2. The defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the trespass claim, and there was no other compelling reason for a trial. The evidence established repeated trespasses despite deterrent measures, together with significant safety concerns.
2. Quia timet injunction. The requirements remained satisfied. There had to be proof of imminent danger, in the sense of a strong probability that, unless restrained, a defendant would breach the claimant’s rights, and the harm had to be sufficiently significant that damages would not be adequate. The court applied the approach illustrated by Vastint Leeds BV v Persons unknown [2019] 4 WLR 2.
3. Form of order. Concerns about the potential effect of an order on police officers and other public authorities were adequately addressed by excluding persons acting with the claimant’s consent or with lawful authority.
4. Procedure and disposition. The application was properly determined without a further hearing. A further hearing would incur expense without serving a useful purpose, and the court took account of the earlier public hearing on notice. Final injunctions prohibited entry or attempted entry to the three sites for specified periods, or until the claimant earlier gave up possession.

The judgment describes an interim injunction granted ex parte on 16 May 2019 and continued by Arnold J at a return hearing on 4 June 2019. It does not state any appeal.