FYI - The 'goons' did not get the big folded of paper work 14 days prior. They received them on Thursday PM for court on the Monday AM
Which states any defence had to be submitted two clear working days prior to the hearing date.
Peel representatives dropped them off on the Thursday to their homes individually late on purpose.
They will not get far in trying for legal costs especially with half of them named. Yes some have posted on social media and bragged and videoed.
Some of them were at the site once end of January and got caught/arrested. Released with out charge. - as they had evidence it were their first time there and also a news paper article which showed the entry being open that they had used to gain access - there for no criminal dammage was done by these and they had proof of entry and the opening already there and they had also videoed privately on their phones footage of their duration there. Which again proves no dammage / unlawful entry.
Like I said above that is the case for some of them named however some others on that list have bragged previously on social media. Peel should not be taking some of these names to court at all it's ridiculous trying to tar normal private explorers with the same brush.
I have seen the entire court paper work and videos - the evidence they have is against half of those names, nothing on any of the others apart from them being caught on the premises end of January.
And solicitors that were called in advised them not to attend the hearing due to the short notice which wasn't acceptable with enough time to raise a defence which were brought to the attention of the court on the Friday afternoon prior to the case.
Some of the names also were not even arrested at that time and only got listed due to sharing Facebook videos on their wall publicly previously.
Everyone has seen the court paperwork, itâs publicly available.
It was an application for interim injunction and under the Civil Procedure Rules, the defendants were meant to get three clear days notice. Although the court has discretion to hear the application with less notice and the Court exercised itâs discretion in view of the evidence and the injunction was granted despite short notice. It looks like the claimantâs solicitors were able to cite more recent incidents of trespass into the site as justification for the need for the Court to hear the application with less notice.
The defendants now have the opportunity to file a defence and defend themselves at the final hearing, if they wish. The application may have been made with short notice (and three days is short notice in any event, but permitted under the CPR in situations like this), however; the purpose of an interim injunction is to prevent something from happening (trespass onto the Fiddlerâs Ferry site, where the claimants say there is a risk of injury or death they cannot otherwise control) pending a final hearing. So, the defendants do have the opportunity to defend themselves, itâs just they (and importantly anyone not named in the application who trespass - âpersons unknownâ) cannot trespass on the site pending the final hearing.
The only reason anyone could claim to have nothing to worry from an Order for Costs, is they have nothing to their name - no money, no assets, no nothing⌠which is an unfortunate situation for anyone to be in to begin with.
