hello this is warning for fiddler ferry

[Bikin Glynn]

Rylands mill in Wigan

That's the one

 

[unplugged]

Was only a matter of time.

Two of those people have been caught there multiple times and only got caught the last time because they decided it was a belter of an idea to shine a laser pen at security baiting out not only them but the others that were there also.
They then posted a video of them pissing themselves laughing at the police that made the 50 min walk up the chimney to clear them out.

It's an interesting read though and pretty entertaining in places.


A good point to note is Page 62 of the Final Hearing Bundle.

160 Finally, it is our position that damages would not be an adequate remedy as
our major concern is prevent possible health and safety risks occurring and
injury being caused to anyone.

161 In the circumstances, we have reached the conclusion that we now require
the assistance of the Court to prevent further unlawful trespass, to protect
the security of the Site, and to prevent what I believe will sooner or later result
in the death or serious injury of those who are undertaking these acts of
trespass and related damage and theft. Peel NRE therefore seeks an interim
injunction in order to assist in preventing future e incidents as soon as
possible.


So it sounds like some individuals (for now) may have dodged a bullet and some are probably are unaware of that fact. A lot of the evidence is also circumstantial and assumed to be fact based purely on WHEN it was posted (and not necessarily when it was taken)/ There's some "evidence" there that's clearly taken when it was owned by SSE (and not long after closure) so claiming damages from that individual for damages based on the last 6 months would be an interesting challenges.

Interestingly enough the court details of the trail don't seem to be public 🤔 anyone know the outcome of the trial?

 

[EOA]

Interestingly enough the court details of the trail don't seem to be public 🤔 anyone know the outcome of the trial?

If you were super keen to find out, you could probably email the partner of the firm or the associate, who have been handling the case. They'll know how the application on the 27th Feb went - but it won't be long before the Order is publicly distributed, assuming they got it (which is a fair assumption, even if it was with some revisions) - because for people who are not specified in the Order to be captured by it, they need to know it exists. As soon as Peel get the order they want, it will be plastered all around Fiddlers Ferry and on their website - you will just need to follow that link.

The evidence that has been presented - all that evidence - is to establish on balance of probability that there is a real risk of further trespass, which may result in death or injury. It doesn't look like the claimant's solicitors were expecting the Application to be resisted, based on their time estimate for the hearing. So, the Court won't have had any reason not to accept the evidence in support of the application.

 

[unplugged]

Oh that I know and for the purposes of "proving trespass occurs there" it's perfectly sufficient and I understand that was the point. The weekly arrests and news articles coming out every week should have done the trick alone based on other injunction claims I have read it seems overkill and a very expensive process to track down a couple of goons and copper choppers but I suppose they wanted it to go though 🤷‍♂️

The draft injunction has been plastered all around the fence line in clear plastic boxes baiting out all the entrances and entertainingly providing a easy step ladder if anyone feels like being brave 👀

Maybe it's just because it's a civil case but i'm curious as to how there's been a hearing and no information on the court site from said hearing seems to be anywhere that's publicly available. I'd be interested in reading the court transcript even if it's only 15 minutes but we will find out I guess 😉 I could email their solicitor I guess but legal cases and the outcomes are usually public

 

[EOA]

Oh that I know and for the purposes of "proving trespass occurs there" it's perfectly sufficient and I understand that was the point. The weekly arrests and news articles coming out every week should have done the trick alone based on other injunction claims I have read it seems overkill and a very expensive process to track down a couple of goons and copper choppers but I suppose they wanted it to go though 🤷‍♂️

The draft injunction has been plastered all around the fence line in clear plastic boxes baiting out all the entrances and entertainingly providing a easy step ladder if anyone feels like being brave 👀

Maybe it's just because it's a civil case but i'm curious as to how there's been a hearing and no information on the court site from said hearing seems to be anywhere that's publicly available. I'd be interested in reading the court transcript even if it's only 15 minutes but we will find out I guess 😉 I could email their solicitor I guess but legal cases and the outcomes are usually public

If the Hearing took place, it went ahead two days ago. Assuming the Court made it's decision and did not reserve Judgment, then you're still going to be waiting for the official sealed Order to be sent to the Parties by the Court and at that point, Peel will stick it up on their website.

It is possible to get hold of Judgments from the High Court and above, when they are published - but this was not a contested case and it isn't contentious - it was just an Application for an Injunction. All the cool shit - quite literally - was in the claimant's application, particulars of claim and evidence. The Application was issued in the High Court, but it may have been heard by a District Judge, not a High Court Judge - so, I'm not sure that would be reportable...

Anyway, the 20 minutes for the Hearing will have been administrative and will be the interactions between Claimant's Counsel or Solicitor / Solicitor Advocate and the Judge, whose Judgment will probably amount to no more than, "After considering the evidence and submission from Counsel, the Order is approved". So, there isn't much to report. Nothing fun, anyway.

The interactions between Counsel and the Court aren't reportable, because they're not part of the Court's Judgment.

 

[EOA]

Oh that I know and for the purposes of "proving trespass occurs there" it's perfectly sufficient and I understand that was the point. The weekly arrests and news articles coming out every week should have done the trick alone based on other injunction claims I have read it seems overkill and a very expensive process to track down a couple of goons and copper choppers but I suppose they wanted it to go though 🤷‍♂️

It's more expensive to go in half cocked and fail to persuade the court of sufficient risk of death or injury...

But, if it was me making that application, the reason I'd go to the lengths they have is to punish the goons who have been utter cockwombles by parading their images all over social media, no doubt to make up for the overwhelming sense of inadequacy their small penis brings and to try and get my costs back.

If they issued for damages, they'd have to issue against each person separately and they'd potentially struggle to establish causation of loss, so would conceivably be limited to nominal damages. Even if they could establish some financial loss, the claims would most likely be allocated to the small claims track where solicitors costs are restricted to peanuts - they'd be lucky to get £80. Peel would pay their solicitor the difference and be unable to / have no prospect of recovering them. Also, you're looking at 18 months to get a claim for damages through the system at the moment.

So, issue a High Court Application and suddenly you're in the realm of big costs, which each of the defendant's is liable to pay (and not just their share, they'll pin them onto whoever they can get the money out of). Those costs are much more than damages would have been.

Also, think about the insurance Peel has to pay. If they're aware there are intruders and these things are well publicised, on a site like that, their insurance will go through the roof. So, the cost of doing an application like this is going to be a much cheaper alternative to increased premiums and will give them / their insurer a defence that they have done everything reasonably possible to put someone off trespassing... in the event some goon manages to injury themselves and sues in negligence, because they will - they're goons.

And, also, it's funny making goons cry. They're not difficult to track down either (well, they don;t even make it hard... "Exploring with small penises spaffs..."

 

[unplugged]

It's more expensive to go in half cocked and fail to persuade the court of sufficient risk of death or injury...

But, if it was me making that application, the reason I'd go to the lengths they have is to punish the goons who have been utter cockwombles by parading their images all over social media, no doubt to make up for the overwhelming sense of inadequacy their small penis brings and to try and get my costs back.

If they issued for damages, they'd have to issue against each person separately and they'd potentially struggle to establish causation of loss, so would conceivably be limited to nominal damages. Even if they could establish some financial loss, the claims would most likely be allocated to the small claims track where solicitors costs are restricted to peanuts - they'd be lucky to get £80. Peel would pay their solicitor the difference and be unable to / have no prospect of recovering them. Also, you're looking at 18 months to get a claim for damages through the system at the moment.

So, issue a High Court Application and suddenly you're in the realm of big costs, which each of the defendant's is liable to pay (and not just their share, they'll pin them onto whoever they can get the money out of). Those costs are much more than damages would have been.

Also, think about the insurance Peel has to pay. If they're aware there are intruders and these things are well publicised, on a site like that, their insurance will go through the roof. So, the cost of doing an application like this is going to be a much cheaper alternative to increased premiums and will give them / their insurer a defence that they have done everything reasonably possible to put someone off trespassing... in the event some goon manages to injury themselves and sues in negligence, because they will - they're goons.

And, also, it's funny making goons cry. They're not difficult to track down either (well, they don;t even make it hard... "Exploring with small penises spaffs..."

Not debating that, we all know the risks in this hobby however according to the claimant they aren't going after costs (we will see though) most of the explorers on that list are indeed Grade A goons and there's a few more I'm gutted they didn't get especially the "Live Stream" variety. Given as the copper choppers turn up pretty much from Day 1 i'm also surprised why more large industrial sites don't apply for injunctions straight away but I don't know the costs involved (other than the £500 fee apparently) and of course solicitors costs but I suspect that "persons unknown" is quite a hard card to sell.

What I mean though is that Injunction or not, Small Claims or not i'm assuming each of the named defendants would need to be prosecuted for costs in the same way as a normal trespass. Sure the costs and stakes are much higher but everyone is entitled to mount a defense and have their day in court when being taken up the arse for thousands. Evidence collected should be able to be cross examined and if needed discredited and simply being on an injunction shouldn't be taken as absolute guilt. Most of these are Grade A Goons and have made the lives of investigators easy by detailing how they got in, when they went and leaving a paper trail of public Facebook posts showing them laughing at police, security as well as having their likeness plastered all over the public photos that leave a trail that's easy to tie up so there's little chance of "getting off"

From a legal standpoint though if someone can just just buy an old soggy derp, search for it online and make up a list of names of people that have put up internal shots of it (regardless of when it was taken or if the person was an old employee, secca, or dog walker), send them a 1000 page legal document 5 days before a trial (with only 3 days to respond) and are automatically able to sue them for 1000s in damages? That seems like a very heavy overreach of the law if you ask me and If that's the case the urbex community should be worried. We do a lot of things such as obscurating dates etc to add plausible deniability but this situation sounds very one sided.

 

[EOA]

Not debating that, we all know the risks in this hobby however according to the claimant they aren't going after costs (we will see though) most of the explorers on that list are indeed Grade A goons and there's a few more I'm gutted they didn't get especially the "Live Stream" variety. Given as the copper choppers turn up pretty much from Day 1 i'm also surprised why more large industrial sites don't apply for injunctions straight away but I don't know the costs involved (other than the £500 fee apparently) and of course solicitors costs but I suspect that "persons unknown" is quite a hard card to sell.

What I mean though is that Injunction or not, Small Claims or not i'm assuming each of the named defendants would need to be prosecuted for costs in the same way as a normal trespass. Sure the costs and stakes are much higher but everyone is entitled to mount a defense and have their day in court when being taken up the arse for thousands. Evidence collected should be able to be cross examined and if needed discredited and simply being on an injunction shouldn't be taken as absolute guilt. Most of these are Grade A Goons and have made the lives of investigators easy by detailing how they got in, when they went and leaving a paper trail of public Facebook posts showing them laughing at police, security as well as having their likeness plastered all over the public photos that leave a trail that's easy to tie up so there's little chance of "getting off"

From a legal standpoint though if someone can just just buy an old soggy derp, search for it online and make up a list of names of people that have put up internal shots of it (regardless of when it was taken or if the person was an old employee, secca, or dog walker), send them a 1000 page legal document 5 days before a trial (with only 3 days to respond) and are automatically able to sue them for 1000s in damages? That seems like a very heavy overreach of the law if you ask me and If that's the case the urbex community should be worried. We do a lot of things such as obscurating dates etc to add plausible deniability but this situation sounds very one sided.

The part of the application I looked at, said costs were reserved, which means they'll be decided at the end. They are expressly not seeking damages, but damages are not costs. If damages were an effective remedy, they might not get the injunction.

Not all cases of trespass are worth bothering with an injunction - for lots of reasons - nor is an injucntion always appropriate, nor will it necessarily be granted, which is why you don't see them popping up except in extreme cases, like this. If you can't be arsed with secca, you're not going to bother with an injunction. And some building owners with secca permit the metal faries to visit (looking at you Fletchers secca).

You don't have to issue proceedings for costs separately - they're assessed by the court if they cannot be agreed by the parties, but it is the same action. Costs are not damages.

"Persons Unknown", does not refer to other people not specified in the application who may have trespassed, who they have not traced. This is an Order against anyone who may ignore the Order in future, so they can be held in contempt of court too.

The named defendant's did all get a chance to defend themselves. Each and everyone of them was served with a sealed copy of the Application and had 14 days to confirm whether they intended to admit or or indicate their intention to defend. From the information we can see online, it looks like no one bothered.

There is nothing for the urban exploring community to worry about - anyone who wanted to do Fiddlers Ferry or the other power stations did it long before the goons showed up, in the same way anyone who wanted to top out on the Lloyds building did that ages before Ally Law spaffed it everywhere.

 

[EOA]

From a legal standpoint though if someone can just just buy an old soggy derp, search for it online and make up a list of names of people that have put up internal shots of it (regardless of when it was taken or if the person was an old employee, secca, or dog walker), send them a 1000 page legal document 5 days before a trial (with only 3 days to respond) and are automatically able to sue them for 1000s in damages? That seems like a very heavy overreach of the law if you ask me and If that's the case the urbex community should be worried. We do a lot of things such as obscurating dates etc to add plausible deniability but this situation sounds very one sided.

This is not what is happening. People aren't being sued for damages.

 

[unplugged]

The named defendant's did all get a chance to defend themselves. Each and everyone of them was served with a sealed copy of the Application and had 14 days to confirm whether they intended to admit or or indicate their intention to defend. From the information we can see online, it looks like no one bothered.

There is nothing for the urban exploring community to worry about - anyone who wanted to do Fiddlers Ferry or the other power stations did it long before the goons showed up, in the same way anyone who wanted to top out on the Lloyds building did that ages before Ally Law spaffed it everywhere.

Well no. Most of the defendants were served papers on or shortly after the 23rd February with the trial taking place on the morning of the 27th. That's 4 Days tops (not 14)

This is all documented here.

https://fiddlersferry.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/09.-Exhibit-DCH1-to-the-First-Witness-Statement-of-David-Christopher-Holland-15-February-2023.pdf

And also correlates to the date a lot of them immediately started posting photos of the injunction on Social Media and when I was given the link (and had a chuckle reading though it)

Either way some of the names weren't served papers personally at all (merely getting them dumped though their letterboxes) which IS sufficient in the law but if you aren't at home or on holiday, working away etc arguably not in a position to make a timely response. It probably took a day or so to read and digest, then you have to instruct solicitors (who will have to read it) and to rub salt in the wounds any objection or appeal had to be made 48h before the court hearing.

That's about a day or two realistically even if you were handed it personally so i'm not surprised nobody showed up even though most of them knew they were guilty.

There is nothing for the urban exploring community to worry about - anyone who wanted to do Fiddlers Ferry or the other power stations did it long before the goons showed up, in the same way anyone who wanted to top out on the Lloyds building did that ages before Ally Law spaffed it everywhere.

Yes and No.

I talk occasionally with a couple of people on the injunction (directly or indirectly)

One of them wasn't listed but has a whole section in the injunction and 80% of the shit in there was his and they couldn't work out who he was 🙄 had he been on there I would not be surprised and it would frankly be deserved.
One of the names was added because of a comment that was made on another post saying "Epic Mate" which lead them to find an old video on their profile from 2020 (and clearly before they owned the site) but because it was posted in November 2022 he must have trespassed since August last year 🤦‍♂️


Either way If an injunction can be raised that quickly (and if passed) you're immediately found liable for any monetary amount (regardless of what you want to call it) with practically no notice then that is slightly concerning.
Makes me scared to go on holiday 👀

 

[unplugged]

But on a more lighter note my favorite part of the injunction has got to be this.

On Sunday evening the security night shift called me to make me aware that most of the new
camera system was down.

There was no time given as to when the system went down by the day shift.
On my instruction, the night shift checked all the towers for possible damage - there was none.
They re-booted the system, and the cameras still did not come online.
The security team was told to stay vigilant overnight.

I came in this morning and found that the NVR was switched off.

Upon checking the footage, it was switched off by the Securitas officer when he was plugging in
the hoover to clean the 4x4. I have spoken to the officer and believe it to be a genuine mistake.
However not long after the NVR was switched off, we had approximately 15 intruders enter site
from the rear fence line behind the north cooling towers.

This was only discovered because of the covert cameras that I checked this morning.
There appeared to be a group of two males followed by a larger group of males and females
approximately one hour later.

I have reported this to the police who have recorded the incident.

That along with the "15 Man Incursion" was peak tourbussing here.

 

[zombizza]

It such a shame that there are idiots like this about. It feels like they are the final nail in the coffin for this hobby here in the UK.
These days I feel embarassed when I hear, and avoid using, the term 'urban exploring' because in my mind it now conjures up the image of these sorts of fools and is what people who don't do this probably think as well.
I wonder if I will end up photgraphing wildlife or something else instead.

 

[mookster]

Either way some of the names weren't served papers personally at all (merely getting them dumped though their letterboxes) which IS sufficient in the law but if you aren't at home or on holiday, working away etc arguably not in a position to make a timely response. It probably took a day or so to read and digest, then you have to instruct solicitors (who will have to read it) and to rub salt in the wounds any objection or appeal had to be made 48h before the court hearing.

That's about a day or two realistically even if you were handed it personally so i'm not surprised nobody showed up even though most of them knew they were guilty.

The few people involved who I saw had posted things directly related to it were treating it as one big joke, they're highly unlikely to instruct solicitors or anything like that. Which makes the prospect of some of those goons getting hung out to dry, lumbered with massive costs after all the dust settles even sweeter.

 

[EOA]

@unplugged - you are right about Notice of the hearing for the 27th being later on (at least for the named Defendants), although I think you meant to reference this witness statement. The Claimant's solicitors are arguing they have given sufficient notice (3 days) under the Civil Procedure Rules, but it will be interesting to see whether the Court accepted their submission, because they have not been given three clear days. It does look like the Court has discretion to, "...direct that, in the circumstances of the case, sufficient notice has been given and hear the application." We will see!

In terms of your yes and no response as to whether there is anything to worry about - there really isn't - not if you don't go about spaffing your photos around like it makes you some kind of hero. Even then, you can spaff until your heart is content unless it is a site that is likely to apply for an injunction and the claimant still needs to make their case that an injunction is an appropriate remedy. These applications are very rare and for good reason.

There is plenty to go at in terms of defending the application... But, if like Mookster says, the defendants are treating it as one big joke and the application goes unopposed, the chances are it will be or has been granted.

 

[unplugged]

The few people involved who I saw had posted things directly related to it were treating it as one big joke, they're highly unlikely to instruct solicitors or anything like that. Which makes the prospect of some of those goons getting hung out to dry, lumbered with massive costs after all the dust settles even sweeter.

Yeah most of them either outright mocked the injunction 🤷‍♂️ I have very little sympathy for the majority of them, they are on there because they were busted for cable theft or are the "Exploring With" or live stream crews and have splashed it all over their pages with their faces grinning away and then given up any anonymity they had by posting the same photos directly (publicly) on their own private profiles and "like commenting or subscribing" or having a profile picture that's easy to put 2+2 together with.

Some lessons have and will continue to be learnt here.