UK Bar Vocational Course

IN THE BROMLEY COUNTY COURT

BETWEEN 1.SUSAN CHILCOTT                          Claimants HAYDN CHILCOTT   and GAVIN DAVIES                                  Defendants SHERYL DAVIES (as representing themselves and all other members of Oak Lane Sports Club) By an application in pending proceedings: This application raises no issues under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Claimants Susan Chilcott and Haydn Chilcott, applied to the court for an injunction order in the following terms: That the Defendants, Gavin Davies and Sheryl Davies, be forbidden (whether by themselves or by instructing or encouraging any other person) from causing a nuisance or annoyance to the Claimants in any manner whatsoever but in particular:

  • By causing or committing any sporting activities to be played on the east playing field at the Oak Lane Sports Club (“the east field”).
  • By causing or permitting any music to be played at 34 Oak Lane, Bromley, Kent (“the premises”) otherwise than between the hours of 7:00 pm and 11:00 pm on Saturdays.
  • By causing or permitting any sacks of refuge, bottles, or litter of any kind whatsoever to be left, otherwise than within the boundary of the premises.
  • By placing or leaving any vehicle or any other obstruction on or in front of the driveway of the Claimants’ property known as 32 Oak Lane, Bromley, Kent.

And the Defendants be ordered to pay the costs of this application.

The Claimants provided the following documents in support of their application:

  • Exhibit SC1: Sketch Plan of 32 Oak Lane and the Oak Lane Sports Club
  • Exhibit SC2: Letter from Claimant Haydn Chilcott to defendant Gavin Davies, complaining about the disturbances caused and requesting some action in the matter
  • Exhibit SC3:Flier Advertising Basewell Tournament, Barbecue and Disco, Saturday 13th August 2005

PARTICULARS

Claimants Susan and Hayden Chilcott are the owners of the property situated at 34 Oak lane and the defendants Gavin and Sheryl Davies are the owners of the Oak Lane Sports Club situated at 32 Oak Lane, which borders on the property of the Claimants. This application is filed to redress the grievances of the Claimants that have arisen as a result of the hindrances and disturbances caused by the Defendants on several occasions, which have hindered the peace and caused damage to the property of the Claimants. Details of such activities of the Defendants are spelt out below:

  • 26th and 30th July: Loud noises, breaking glass and revving motorcycles up to 2:30 a.m., causing disturbance in a peaceful neighborhood
  • 24th and 31st July: Littering up the driveway of the Claimants’ property with broken beer bottles, including blocking up Claimants’ driveway on several occasions
  • August 2nd and 9th: Damages caused by hardballs used in playing baseball. On one occasion, causing damage to a pane of glass and breaking an ornament and on the second occasion, a broken tile. On both occasions, the hard balls narrowly missed causing grievous bodily damage to the children who were being minded by the Claimants.
  • Littering up the Claimant’s driveway with broken bottles and trash bags ripped open, causing a hideous mess.

Claimants have approached defendants on several occasions and complained about the noise and the disturbances.  Claimant Hayden Chilcott has telephoned defendant several times and a complaint was also set out in writing, which is appended to this application. However, no action has been taken by the Defendants thus far, to redress the grievances of the Claimants. A major part of the disturbance is caused by the discos that are now held every Saturday night. Additionally, a local Youth support organization has been using the club facilities to practice baseball, which is the cause of the hard balls that are being sent over into Claimant’s property, posing a risk and danger to the young children being minded by the Claimant.

                                               Urgency of this application

This application has assumed an urgent nature because of the weekly discos and baseball sessions which continue unabated. Claimants refer in particular to the exhibit marked SC3, which sets out details of a baseball tournament and barbecue to be held at the Oak Lane Sports Club on the 13th of August. In view of the fact that defendants have hitherto ignored Claimants’ telephone calls and written requests for action on the hindrances caused to them and the fact that  an application has been filed in this Court for legal remedy to restrain the defendants, Claimants fear that the defendants will continue with their plans for the baseball tournament and barbecue scheduled for the 13th of August. This poses the threat and danger of  real and further damages that may be caused by baseballs and broken bottles, not only to the property of the Claimants but also the risk of bodily harm to the children being minded on the property and /or the Claimants themselves. Moreover, a visit by inspection authorities has been scheduled for the 16th of August, which is the day of the baseball practices. Claimants fear that they will be removed from the roster of child minders as a result of the dangers and risk posed by flying baseballs. One child has already been removed by her parents from being minded by the Claimants, which has caused a loss of income of 100 pounds per week to the Claimants.

In view of the circumstances mentioned above, Claimants  state that it has therefore become extremely urgent that the defendants’ destructive activities be stopped immediately. However, Claimants’ attempts to contact defendants have been fruitless since neither Mr. nor Mrs. Davies is available for assistance. Mr. Davies is away at Manchester till tomorrow evening and Mrs. Davies is away at Cardiff till tomorrow afternoon. Therefore, Claimants are filing this application for an urgent interim injunction to be issued against the defendants, restraining them from conducting any activities that will pose a threat and/or risk to the Claimants, their property and the persons present on their property. This application is being made without notice to the Defendants in view of the fact that they are not available.

                                                           Legal precedents

It is submitted that under the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act of 1981, this Court is permitted to grant an interim injunction in favor of the Claimant, restraining the infringing defendants from their infringing acts pending the trial. Claimants submit in this regard, the principles laid out in the case of American Cyanamid Co vs. Ethicon Ltd1 (House of Lords 1974), where an interim injunction may be indicated when there is a serious issue to be tried and the balance of convenience is in the Claimant’s favor.

In support of the serious nature of the offences alleged against the defendants, Claimants draw reference to the damages already caused to property, which may be detailed as follows:

(a) replacement of damaged glass pane                    45 pounds

(b) replacement of  damaged garden ornaments       75 pounds

(c ) replacement of roof tile                                       40 pounds

(d)  travel to Eastbourne and night at hotel              250 pounds

(d) Loss of income from child minding                    100 pounds per week

(continuing every week)

However, apart from the damages already caused, and damages which are continuing in the form of lost child minding fees, Claimants also wish to assert that the potential risks of damage are much higher. There is a real danger that bodily harm could be caused to the children in Claimant’s property. Further loss of child minding revenue is likely to occur if more parents pull their children out and in view of the pending inspection by authorities, Claimant may also lose her child minding license.

                                                           Damages

While the Claimant has claimed damages for the losses caused as detailed above, it is also the plea of the Claimants that this honorable Court may be pleased to look into the cause of action as set forth by the Claimants, in order to assess additional damages that may be due to Claimants. Interest on said compensations as deemed appropriate by the Court , is also claimed under Section 69 of the County Courts Act of  1984. Claimant also leaves it to the discretion to this Court as additional relief and compensation that may be deemed to be due to Claimants for the inconveniences and hardships that they have incurred thus far and are likely to incur in the future. The damages for the said destruction to property and loss of job opportunity alone is inadequate to compensate for the further losses that are likely to accrue to Claimants if the activities of the defendants are not restrained by the immediate issue of a temporary injunction to arrest further losses and damages.

Claimant also submits that adequacy of damages is not an issue for the defendants, since the activities of the past few weeks have already resulted in gains accruing to the defendants which are more than adequate to compensate Claimant for the damages that have already been caused in terms of destruction of property, loss of job and hotel expense. Claimant submits that paying these damages is unlikely to pose a problem for the defendants and therefore, the provisions set out in the case of Cyanamid Co vs. Ethicon Ltd1 on interim injunction will be relevant and applicable to this case.

                                                           Balance of convenience

The balance of convenience in this case rests in favor of the  Claimant, since the Defendants will not be put to undue loss and hardship if they are required by this Court to pay the damages that have already been caused and have been set out under the section on legal precedents as set out in this application for interim injunction. The damages have been quantified and presented as a definite amount which is due immediately. Other damages such as inconvenience, hardship and loss of income are left to the discretion of this Court to quantify, however they are unlikely to cause undue hardship to the defendants.

Claimants however, will be subject to further hardships and damages to property. There is also the risk of loss of life and/or serious bodily injury being caused to Claimants through the activities of the defendants. Therefore the balance of convenience in this case is not in favor of the defendants.

                                                           The Draft Order

Claimants therefore reiterate their application to this Court for an interim injunction as follows:

That the Defendants, Gavin Davies and Sheryl Davies, be forbidden (whether by themselves or by instructing or encouraging any other person) from causing a nuisance or annoyance to the Claimants in any manner whatsoever but in particular:

  • By causing or committing any sporting activities to be played on the east playing field at the Oak Lane Sports Club (“the east field”).
  • By causing or permitting any music to be played at 34 Oak Lane, Bromley, Kent (“the premises”) otherwise than between the hours of 7:00 pm and 11:00 pm on Saturdays.
  • By causing or permitting any sacks of refuge, bottles, or litter of any kind whatsoever to be left, otherwise than within the boundary of the premises.
  • By placing or leaving any vehicle or any other obstruction on or in front of the driveway of the Claimants’ property known as 32 Oak Lane, Bromley, Kent.

And the Defendants be ordered to pay the costs of this application.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true.

Signed: Susan Chilcott

The Claimants’ solicitors to whom documents should be sent, Chaterjee and Co, 14 Hugh Street, Bromley, Kent.

(1) That the claimant can show that there is a serious issue to be tried.
(2) That the court considers where the balance of convenience lies.
The important things to consider here are:
(i) the court’s ability to quantify likely damages;
(ii) the sufficiency of the claimant’s cross-undertaking in damages (if the defendant is successful at trial); and
(iii) the sufficiency of the defendant’s financial resources to compensate the claimant (if the claimant is successful at trial).
(3) If there is no imbalance, then the status quo is preserved.

In showing that there is a serious issue to be tried, the House of Lords held that the court must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious

Let's make that grade!
Online chat
Messenger