The main reason for that is because all the legal actions started with an injunction application and the main cases supporting them was in all probability submitted at a later date.
However, because some of the legal actions are still in progress, politicians, associations, the press and the community continue to “believe the words used” when the original application was made, meaning that the “injunction” with restraining power is what is currently being legally accessed by the courts, but in reality what is currently still running is only the principal court actions that supported the initial “injunction” application. Nothing else.
These principal legal actions (main case), does not have any restraining authority or power that would enable the TUPEM to be cancelled, nor is there any restrictive award that a presiding judge could legally award until the case has been fully heard and analysed.
Because the court, when analysing the initial injunction applications which are the legal instrument that could cancel or embargoed the TUPEM, as well as the submissions by the Ministry of the Sea and their arguments, identified that there were no valid legal grounds to award the injunction requests, as a result all the original restrictions allowed for in law, were lifted by the presiding judges.
The bottom line is that the “title/name” given to the initial legal case remains officially as an “injunction” in spite of the fact that we are talking about two very different legal instruments. Albeit interlinked.
Technically, nobody is “LYING” , not the associations or the politicians, they just not giving its right meaning under the circumstances...
... the danger is that by alluding that it is one thing, when in fact its something else, results in that the community is left with two lines of though:
1- as there are active “injunctions” I have nothing to worry about
2- as there are active “injunctions” and “the powers that be” continue doing what they want, we are wasting our time.
Neither of these outcomes assists in our fight to stop the oil drilling!
Another factor that people ignore is the “automatic stopping” effect of an injunction application and the timeline to grant or not the "urgency" underpinning the injunction, meaning, that as soon as an injunction application is submitted to court, that submission has the immediate power to halt an action by the defendant which the applicant deems to be a breach of their rights.
However, the presiding judge has to quickly (normally within a month or with just a few days more) decide if the court maintains or lifts that automatic “stopping order”, based on the possible outcome of a principal court action. An injunction is just a legal instrument that can be used to stop irreparable damages to the applicant, meaning, that should the “injunction” not be granted will result in a permanent loss to the applicant while waiting for the outcome of a principal case.
The reality remains - the facts are that the judges dismissed ALL the “urgent injunction applications” that were submitted based on the main court action potential outcome. Combined with above scenarios, this has led to major confusion being create across the board.
To state the FACTS as they are, is not an act of self-condemnation, it is an act of RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY.
To make mistakes is human, and it happens to all of us ... and we are sure that as this fight continues all of us will be making them along the way! But each and everyone of us knows, that at the end of the day we have to decide, if we can really look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning or not …