Linemile Properties Limited & Anor v George Anthony Plater & Anor

The court’s equitable power to grant interim injunctions is broad and flexible. The categories of case in which relief may be granted are not closed, and an injunction need not always protect a legal or equitable right identifiable independently of the reasons justifying relief. The court may regulate the conduct of a party before it where necessary to protect a claimant’s interest in litigation, prevent injustice, or guard the court’s processes. Practice and precedent guide the form and exercise of the jurisdiction but are not mandatory category gateways. Relief may protect access to legal advisers and experts even though those persons are not parties to the proceedings.

The defendants appealed from an order of HHJ Dodd in the Barrow-in-Furness County Court dated 13 October 2021. The order restrained them from abusing, harassing, assaulting, threatening, approaching or speaking directly to the respondents’ solicitor and to experts or others engaged by the respondents in the litigation.

The underlying dispute concerned rights of way and alleged harassment. The appeal challenged the jurisdiction and propriety of granting interim relief for the protection of non-parties, relied on The Siskina, and argued that the order was not ancillary to a pleaded cause of action. The central issue was whether the judge had erred in granting the injunction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal was governed by rule 52.21(1): the lower court’s decision could be reversed only if it was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. The power to grant an injunction against a party properly before the court derives from the court’s common-law and equitable jurisdiction, supplemented here by Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37. The categories of interim relief are not closed. Broad Idea International Ltd v Convov Collateral Ltd [2021] UKPC 24 was persuasive authority that the restrictions expressed in The Siskina were legally unsound.
3. The court must identify a claimant’s interest meriting protection and a legal or equitable principle justifying relief. That interest need not be a right independently identifiable before considering the reasons for the injunction. Relief may be granted where necessary and reasonable to avoid injustice and to ensure the proper administration of justice.
4. The injunction was not a free-standing remedy for the respondents’ solicitor. It protected the respondents’ entitlement to unimpeded legal and expert assistance in proceedings against parties over whom the court had jurisdiction. The solicitor and experts did not need to be parties or bring separate proceedings.
5. The lower court had made careful factual findings, confined the order geographically and by knowledge, and limited it to the conduct necessary to protect the litigation. Practice and precedent could guide the form and nature of relief, but they were not category gateways. The decision was neither wrong nor unjust.

• High Court (Business and Property Courts): Appeal dismissed. The order of HHJ Dodd dated 13 October 2021 was upheld.
• Barrow-in-Furness County Court: HHJ Dodd granted interim injunctive relief restraining specified conduct towards the respondents’ solicitor and litigation experts.