In addition to filing a preventative injunction against Mr. Cutts the city also named John and Jane Doe in their application. This means that it would apply to basically anyone who might find themselves in the park in contravention to the preventative injunction.
A lawyer, not associated in any way with Mr. Cutts, but representing Jane Doe was prepared to apply to have the injunction against Jane Doe rejected by the court. If I understood the argument it was basically saying the city has absolutely no case in law whereby this injunction should be granted against Jane Doe, who has neither said nor done anything that can be considered obstructing what the city intends to do in order to remove both dams.
The judge would not separate the Jane Doe hearing from the rest of the application, which includes Mr. Cutts, meaning it will be also heard on July 2, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after moderation before publishing,
Thank you for your comments.Any comment that could be considered slanderous or includes unacceptable language will be removed.
Thank you for participating and making your opinions known.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.