[2025] EWCA Civ 1134

In all the circumstances we consider on these issues that the judge’s approach in the balance of convenience exercise was seriously flawed in principle. The exercise of his discretion can therefore be reviewed on appeal. The Epping residents’ fear of crime was properly taken into account by the judge and as in his judgment a factor in favour of the grant of an injunction; he described it as being of limited weight. Mr Brown and Mr Riley-Smith do not say it was irrelevant; nor does Mr Green say it should be decisive. We agree that it is relevant, but in our view it is clearly outweighed, in the American Cyanamid balancing exercise, by the undesirability of incentivising protests, by the desirability in the interests of justice of preserving the status quo for the relatively brief period leading up to the forthcoming trial, and by the range of public interest factors which we have discussed in the judgment above.

We therefore grant permission to appeal, both to Somani and to the SSHD, against the grant of the interim injunction, we allow the appeals and set aside the injunction. The case management directions given by the judge can remain in force subject to any amendment necessitated by the joinder of the SSHD as an intervener. We direct that submissions on costs are to be exchanged and filed by 12 noon on 1 September 2025. We end by recording our gratitude to counsel for their helpful submissions.