The Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Anor v Persons Unknown [2026] EWHC 1548 (KB)

[2026] EWHC 1548 (KB)Case No KB-2026-001615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate Monday 22 th June 2026
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINDAL(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Between
(1) THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OFClaimantsTHE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEAClaimant(2) THE LORD MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OFClaimantTHE CITY OF WESTMINSTERClaimantPersons Unknown who participate between the hours of 6:00pm and 7:00am in a gathering of 2 or more persons within the area the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the City of Westminster set out in Map Exhibit 1 (attached) at which some of those present engage in motor racing or motor stunts or other dangerous or obstructive driving.ClaimantPersons Unknown promoting, organising, publicising (by any means whatsoever) any gathering between the hours of 6 pm and 6 am of 2 or more persons with the intention or expectation that some of those present will engage in motor racing or motor stunts or other dangerous or obstructive driving within the area of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the City of Westminster set out in Map Exhibit 1ClaimantMr Francis Hoar (instructed by and) for ClaimantsNo Appearance or Representation for DefendantsHearing Hearing dates: 16 th and 19 th June 2026
JudgmentI direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic..............................HIS HONOUR JUDGE TINDAL

HHJ TINDAL:

[1]This is an application for a ‘car cruising’ injunction by Westminster City Council (‘Westminster’) and Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council (‘Kensington’). The two authorities (‘the Councils’) are trying to stop people driving dangerously and antisocially at so-called ‘car meets’ at some of the most famous locations in London.[2]These ‘car meets’ have been happening since 2020-21 in various locations in Soho, in Waterloo Place on Pall Mall (near Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square) and in New Bond Street (near Regent Street), all in Westminster’s area. They have also happened particularly regularly on Exhibition Road, between the Royal Albert Hall (in Westminster’s area) and the Victoria and Albert Museum (in Kensington’s area). This explains why it is a joint application by both Councils.[3]The application was originally listed on Tuesday 16th June 2026, but it had not been publicly ‘advertised’ in advance, which (as I will explain) is a requirement of this type of injunction. As the matter was urgent, I re-listed the hearing on Friday 19th June which I directed should be ‘advertised’ by publication on the Councils’ websites that day: giving three days’ notice of the hearing. That was done, although no members of the public attended the hearing on 19th June. At that hearing, I made a narrowed form of the injunction which the Councils initially sought and said these reasons would follow in writing so they can be published alongside the injunction on the Councils’ websites, to explain to the public in brief terms why the injunction has been made.

Legal Principles

[4]‘Car cruising’ is a convenient label for an organised meeting (‘car meet’) of several car drivers (or motorcycle riders) at which they street-race and drive in similarly antisocial ways. Those are prohibited by the injunction, which defines ‘prohibited activity’ as involving two or more drivers or riders: ‘driving at excessive speed, or otherwise dangerously, driving in convoy, racing against other motor vehicles; performing stunts in motor vehicles; sounding horns or playing amplified music; revving engines; or obstructing any other road-user’ in a way causing ‘excessive noise; a danger to other road users (including pedestrians); damage or the risk of damage to private property; or any nuisance to another person not participating in the Car-Cruise’.[5]This injunction has been developed by the Courts over the last decade in response to this antisocial conduct. To my knowledge, the first ‘car cruising injunction’ was made in 2016 in Birmingham – my home court by my colleague HHJ Worster. It was approved by the Court of Appeal in Birmingham CC v Sharif [2020] EWCA Civ 1488. Whilst many (but not all) ‘car cruising activities’ are also motoring offences (e.g. dangerous driving), in Sharif at [41], Bean LJ explained the rationale for an injunction:
“Even assuming…a Criminal Behaviour Order [a Criminal sentence like a restraining order for a criminal offence] is appropriate to be made on conviction for a motoring offence such as dangerous driving or racing on the highway, it could only be made against an individual who had been prosecuted and convicted of an offence, a process which might well take several months. The purpose of the injunction was to prevent future nuisances, not to impose penalties for past ones.”
[6]The Birmingham ‘car cruising’ injunction has been regularly renewed (and was recently reviewed in February 2026 by another Birmingham colleague, Designated Civil Judge HHJ Kelly in Birmingham City Council v Persons Unknown [2026] EWHC 442 (KB) ’Birmingham Car Cruising’). In 2024, similar injunctions were made for nearby Wolverhampton (Wolverhampton CC v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2273 (KB) ‘Wolverhampton Car Crusing’) by Julian Knowles J) and first made in the capital in Enfield London Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 3142 (KB) (‘Enfield Car Cruising’ by Hill J (in which Mr Hoar appeared as he has before me).[7]As is clear from the names of all these cases, each injunction was made against ‘Persons Unknown’, which is a legal way of prohibiting acts by everyone not just named people, as developed in the recent landmark case of Wolverhampton CC v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 (which as its name suggests was about the Travelling Community, not car cruisers). The law of ‘persons unknown injunctions’ (or as they were called in Wolverhampton Travellers - as I shall call it - ‘newcomer injunctions’) is quite complex, but is helpfully explained and applied to car cruising injunctions in Wolverhampton Car Cruising and Enfield Car Cruising. Since this judgment is intended to explain the injunction which I have now made in Westminster and Kensington to interested members of the public, I will not go into detail about the law, but refer interested readers to those cases, which are all available on www.bailii.org. It suffices for this case to summarise what Hill J explained in Enfield Car Cruising at [25]-[31]. Courts can make injunctions restraining conduct (recognised by Parliament in s.37(1) Senior Courts Act 1981 (‘SCA’)); and local authorities have statutory powers to prevent anti-social conduct or ‘highway nuisances’ relating to public roads (under ss.111 and 222 Local Government Act 1972, s.130 Highways Act 1980 and ss.6 and 17 Crime and Disorder Act 1998). In Sharif, the Court of Appeal approved car cruising injunctions in principle despite the fact they often prohibited criminal offences (for the reasons Bean LJ gave I have quoted above), or because local authorities could already prohibit ‘car cruising’ using their statutory power to make a ‘Public Space Protection Order’ (‘PSPO’) under the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘ABCPA’). As Bean LJ explained in Sharif at [39]:
“Breach of a PSPO is a non-arrestable offence carrying only a financial sanction (whether by prosecution or by service of a fixed penalty notice)….There may also be potential difficulties about what does or does not constitute a ’public space’; how large that public space can be; and whether a PSPO can properly cover the activities of those who organise or advertise street cruises.”
That said, PSPOs have been used quite successfully by some local authorities round the UK, as detailed in the interesting academic article by Vicky Heap and Claire Farmer, Using Public Spaces Protection Orders to put the brakes on car cruising. Nevertheless, as Bean LJ said in Sharif, PSPOs have limitations in their penalties and so in their deterrence. Indeed, as I will explain, PSPOs have not proved effective in Westminster. Likewise, the Police’ statutory power under s.59(3) Police Reform Act 2002 to seize a vehicle if used antisocially is only available if its driver/owner has already been warned for similar conduct. By contrast, breach of an injunction is a Contempt of Court not just punishable by fine, but by up to two years’ imprisonment. For example, recently in Aksahin v Enfield LBC [2026] EWCA Civ 231, the Court of Appeal upheld a finding of contempt and suspended prison sentence and substantial costs order against a passenger in a car being raced in breach of the injunction who had previously been warned.[8]Nevertheless, the risk of imprisonment for breach – indeed with a ‘persons unknown or newcomer injunction’, potentially imprisonment of any person not just named individuals – requires strict safeguards. These were laid down by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton Travellers. They were summarised (with paragraph references to Wolverhampton Travellers) by Knowles J in Wolverhampton Car Cruising at [51]:
“a. Any applicant for an injunction against newcomers must satisfy the court by detailed evidence that there is a compelling justification for the order sought. There must be a strong possibility that a tort is to be committed and that that will cause real harm. The threat must be real and imminent: see [188] and [218]….‘Imminent' in this context simply means 'not premature'. b. The applicant must show that all reasonable alternatives to an injunction have been exhausted, including negotiation: [189]. c. It must be demonstrated that the claimant has taken all other appropriate steps to control the wrong complained of: [189]. d. If byelaws are available to control the behaviour complained of then consideration must be given to them as a relevant means of control in place of an injunction. However, the Court [in Wolverhampton Travellers] seemed to consider that in an appropriate case it should be recognised that byelaws may not be an adequate means of control: see [216]-[217]. e. There is a vital duty of full disclosure on the applicant, extending to 'full disclosure of all facts, matters and arguments of which, after reasonable research, it is aware or could with reasonable diligence ascertain and which might affect the decision of the court whether to grant, maintain or discharge the order in issue, or the terms of the order it is prepared to make or maintain. This is a continuing obligation on any local authority seeking or securing such an order, and it is one it must fulfil having regard to the one-sided nature of the application and the substance of the relief sought. Where relevant information is discovered after the making of the order, the local authority may have to put the matter back before the court on a further application: [219]. f. The Court made it clear that the evidence must therefore err on the side of caution, and the court, not the applicant should be the judge of relevance: [220]. g. 'The actual or intended respondents to the application must be identified as precisely as possible': [221]. h. The injunction must spell out clearly, and in everyday terms, the full extent of the acts it prohibits, and should extend no further than the minimum necessary to achieve its proper purpose: [222]. i. There must be strict temporal and territorial limits: [225]. j. Injunctions of this kind should be reviewed periodically: [225]: k. Where possible, the claimant must take reasonable steps to draw the application to the attention of those likely to be affected: [226] [‘advertisement’] l. Effective notice of the order must be given, and the claimant must disclose to the court all steps intended to achieve that: [230] et seq. m. The order must contain a generous liberty to apply: [232] [In other words, enabling any person affected by the injunction to apply to set it aside or vary it]..”
[9]I have not overlooked that Courts need to consider whether a ‘cross-undertaking in damages’ is appropriate, even though the application is not technically one for an interim injunction where such undertakings are generally required: Wolverhampton Travellers at [234]. However, no cross-undertakings were ordered in Birmingham Car Cruising, nor in Wolverhampton Car Cruising, nor in Enfield Car Cruising. Nor will I, as the Councils here are local authorities seeking to enforce the law (even if existing law is not an effective deterrent) and there is no reason to require them to compensate ‘loss’. Subject to that, I will next briefly set out the factual background of issues with car cruising in Westminster and Kensington, then explain why an order is justified in this case and satisfies the stringent safeguards which I have just summarised.

Factual Background

[10]I have been provided by the Councils with a bundle with almost 200 pages of evidence and statements describing ‘car cruising’ from officers of Westminster (Ms Deighton), Kensington (Ms Maher), the Police (PCs Wylie, Meadows and Boothroyd) and almost 30 different statements from people who live or work in the affected areas (whom I need not name in a public judgment). In the original application, whilst the Council and Police Officers’ statements mainly dated from the first few months of 2026 (the application was made in late April 2026), the public’s statements came from 2025 or 2024 and one from early 2022. Clearly, ‘car cruising’ has been a problem for years.[11]However, this is a double-edged sword for the Councils’ application – why apply now? As the Court was only able to list the application on 16th June, at that hearing, I was conscious that even the newest evidence was six weeks old and suggested there had not been a ‘car meet’ since January 2026. To ensure the Councils complied with their legal obligation to give ‘full disclosure’ of the current position, at the hearing on 16th June, when re-listing the hearing, I directed further statements from the Councils (assisted by the Police). But at that hearing I was told that far from a lull, there had been a ‘car meet’ as recently as 28th May 2026, where Police handed out almost 50 warning notices under an existing PSPO. As I shall explain, there is a pattern of increased ‘car meets’ over the summer and the Councils were anxious to obtain an injunction as soon as possible. That is why I re-listed it after only three days on 19th June - in fact a longer period of ‘advertisement’ of the hearing than in some other ‘car cruising’ applications. The following is drawn together chronologically from all the evidence before me.[12]As I said, ‘car cruising’ events are not new – they arose in the West Midlands about a decade ago – and doubtless there have always been such activities since there have been cars and motorbikes, although contemporary technology perhaps enables them to be organised more effectively and widely. According to the academic article I mentioned, there is a dearth of official data about ‘car cruising’, although it appears the trend is on the increase in cities nationally - and urban councils around the country are tackling the problem with PSPOs or injunctions. According to the first resident’s statement from as early January 2022, the problem along Exhibition Road - as I said between the Royal Albert Hall and the Museum Quarter straddling the Councils’ border – goes back to September 2020, which as everyone remembers was between COVID ‘lockdowns’. The resident described regular meetings of up to 50 cars and crowds of people, with drivers revving their engines so much that sparks flew and then racing along Exhibition Road and surrounding roads. Contrary to lazy stereotypes about disorder, some evidence suggests some cars used are ‘supercars’, indicating participants are extremely wealthy, which may explain why small fines have not worked.[13]Whilst Exhibition Road is very famous, a picture of it explains why the ‘car cruisers’ find it so attractive a venue, in the West End of London, surrounded by landmarks:15. So, Exhibition Road has no pavements and whilst visitors may therefore believe it is pedestrianised, in fact it is not. This gives the ‘street cruisers’ a wider ‘track’ to race on. Indeed, statement after statement from local residents or workers describe how this happened regularly in 2021-2025. For example, one worker said in December 2024 (which is entirely typical of many other members of the public aho gave statements): “Over the last two years, I have noticed regular vehicles attending Exhibition Road..on Saturday nights..from 11pm until the following morning at 1.30. The vehicles are driving fast and dangerously, playing loud music, revving their engines and exhaust popping….The drivers have no respect for the roads. These vehicle meets are affecting the area, it is not safe for children and adults…”16. Indeed, a Police Report from mid-2025 (from which that photo is taken) records that between January 2024 and May 2025, there were one or more ‘car meets’ on Exhibition Road in February, April, May, June, July, August, October, November and December 2024 and in January, February, March and May 2025. Whilst it did not happen every month, it happened more frequently from around Easter over the Summer (when of course I heard the application) and again in the run-up to Christmas and over New Year[14]The position in Soho and Piccadilly before 2025 is not quite so clear from the evidence. However, according to Ms Deighton from Westminster Council, there was at least one ‘meet’ in Knightsbridge and Belgravia (the Council ward closest to Exhibition Road) in July and August 2024. Indeed, I infer there must have been some problem earlier in the West End, because in December 2021, Westminster imposed a PSPO preventing ‘car cruising’ not only at its end of Exhibition Road (Kensington have never done so with its end), but also in its St James’ and West End wards (including Soho and Piccadilly). The problem takes a different form in different places. The ‘supercars’ may be drawn to wide Exhibition Road (although the police report there shows images of a motorcyclist there actually riding into Imperial College’s foyer). However, in narrow Frith Street in Soho (location of the iconic Ronnie Scott’s Jazz Club), a local resident describes the problem as mainly motorcyclists, as he said in his statement from April 2025:
“[I]t became 4 nights a week, with up to 60 bikes congregating. Since October 2024 to present day, it is now happening 7 nights a week, still around 60-65 motorbikes. In terms of nuisance, the motorbikes’ engines are being revved to maximum capacity and the bikes are being made to do burnouts to the point where there are rubber tyre marks on the street. This excessive noise usually starts anywhere from 8pm-9pm at night. The majority do stop and leave the area by 11pm, but some do stay, and the latest they disperse is at 3am…”
As with all the residents and workers on Exhibition Road, this Soho resident describes how this disturbs his sleep, causing him huge stress and making him want to move. According to PC Ahmed, a similar gathering of several bikes took place on Frith Street as recently as 6th February 2025. Further back in time, a resident of Waterloo Place in St James near Pall Mall in her statement back in 2021 described ‘car meets’ doing stunts and ‘donuts’ (circling a car round its front axle at speed) disturbing sleep and having a real psychological impact. However, there is less evidence of recent ‘car meets’ in Waterloo Place, until a recent one I shall describe on 28th May 2026. But I accept there were ongoing problems, as Westminster extended its PSPO in December 2024 to cover not only Exhibition Road, Knightsbridge and Belgravia Ward and St James Ward (including Waterloo Place), but also Mayfair and Soho in West End Ward.[15]Indeed, since 2025, the main focus of ‘street cruising’ in the West End itself appears to have been around New Bond Street – a famous and exclusive shopping district - which affects businesses more than residents. According to reports prepared by the New West End Company, one car meets occurred there in March 2025, five in May 2025, one in June 2025, one in November 2025, six in December 2025 – New Year 2026 and others in January and April 2026. The biggest one in March 2025 involved 80 cars and 200 participants or spectators, with multiple store alarms triggered and the Police called. Further, on New Years Day 2026, PC Boothroyd saw approximately 60 vehicles cheered on by 150 people on New Bond Street, revving their engines, wheel spinning etc. Like most of the car meets in Bond Street, this appears to have been more of a ‘gathering’ than racing as such, but it caused considerable antisocial impact. Moreover, at the car meet on 18th January 2026, one car whilst ‘drifting’ across the road at speed hit a pedestrian who had to go to hospital - illustrating the dangers of ‘car cruising’.[16]According to Ms Maher, over the last year from May 2025 to May 2026, there has been a similar pattern at Exhibition Road. Following fifty motorcyclists gathering in May 2025, car meets occurred twice in June 2025, prompting the Police to put in place a Dispersal Zone for Exhibition Road for a short period. Despite additional policing, another car meet happened in July 2025 and again in October 2025 (in the vicinity of crowds leaving the Royal Albert Hall) and November. Indeed, on Christmas Day 2025, according to PC Wylie, 50 cars drove in convoy, doing wheel skids, causing congestion and creating considerable noise nuisance and moving around trying to avoid Police.[17]One of the reasons at the hearing on 16th June I made further enquiries and ordered more evidence is there was at that stage relatively little evidence of significant car meets in either Westminster or Kensington after January 2026. But this relative downturn in the first few months of 2026 is not only typical of the ‘seasonal’ pattern of ‘Car Meets’ in 2024 and 2025. According to Westminster’s Ms Deighton, it is also explained by increased Police presence in the ‘hot spots’ of Westminster’s area funded by the Council itself, reducing car meets by c.50%. However, as Ms Deighton explains, that Police resource has now ended due to Metropolitan Police cost savings.[18]Moreover, as PC Wylie describes, on 27th into 28th May 2026, a car meet took place starting in East London, then to Exhibition Road and finally to Waterloo Place on Pall Mall – i.e. in effect linking together many of the ‘hot spots’ for ‘car cruising’ - at which no fewer than 49 warnings were issued under Police powers for antisocial use of cars. So, far from turning the corner, I accept Ms Deighton’s concern that we are seeing the start of the ‘summer season’ of car meets in 2026. Whilst the organisers suggest dates, they do not necessarily suggest locations on the adverts (which is presumably done by word of mouth by the participants). As Ms Deighton says, this makes it very difficult to anticipate where the car meets will occur. Indeed, at the hearing on 16th June I was told of Police intelligence of a further car meet in late June, but no detail about location. This has a bearing on how specific and focussed an injunction can be in place and time.[19]Therefore, the risk of further car meets has actually increased rather than decreased since this application was made in late April 2026. At the same time, the Police’s capacity to prevent it by proactive policing has diminished. Despite being in force since 2021 and extended in late 2024, Westminster’s PSPO has not effectively limited ‘car cruising’ and this is why both Councils have now turned to the Court for an injunction.

Should an Injunction be Granted?

[20]I have set out the strict requirements for a ‘persons unknown / newcomer’ ‘car cruising’ injunctions summarised by Knowles J in Wolverhampton Car Cruising at paragraph 8 of this judgment above. I will deal with requirements (a)-(d) together under the heading ‘compelling need’; requirements (g)-(j) together under the heading ‘strict limits’; and requirements (e), (f), (k), (l) and (m) together as ‘procedural safeguards.

Compelling Need

[21]In my judgement, there is plainly a ‘compelling need’ for a car cruising injunction in the areas so far affected by it, in particular the whole of Exhibition Road, but also its surrounding areas (including Kensington’s Brompton and Hans Town Ward and Westminster’s Knightsbridge and Belgravia and Hyde Park Wards) and in the other Westminster Wards of St James’ and the West End. Not only have there been serious instances of ‘car cruising’ in each for years, having a real effect on local residents, workers and businesses I have described, there have also been car meets this year in all those areas, including one which caused serious injury in New Bond Street in January and the latest meet less than a month ago. Most of those areas of Westminster have been covered by PSPOs since 2024 and some since 2021. Those have not not stopped the ‘car cruising’ – just as Bean LJ in Sharif warned they may not. The ‘car meets’ were only relatively dampened in early 2026 by substantial Police presence that is no longer sustainable and the ‘summer season’ approaches. Westminster and Kensington have statutory duties under s.130 Highways Act to assert and protect the rights of the public to use and enjoy the highway, which as I have explained is being seriously affected by car cruising, which is therefore itself the tort of public nuisance (let alone multiple criminal offences being committed). Just as Knowles J also concluded in Wolverhampton Car Cruising, what Bean LJ said in Sharif at [42] about the problem of car cruising in Birmingham also applies to car cruising in Westminster and Kensington:
"[C]ar cruising…. would continue unless and until effectively restrained by the law and that nothing short of an injunction would be effective to restrain them. I regard this is a classic case for the granting of an injunction."
[22]Moreover, unlike other injunctions restraining protest or land encampment (as in Wolverhampton Travellers), car cruising does not engage rights to private life under Art.8 or freedom of expression under Art.10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Even if a car cruising injunction interferes with freedom of assembly under Art.11, as Knowles J said in Wolverhampton Car Cruising at [43], it is a necessary and proportionate restriction under Art.11(2) for maintenance of public safety; prevention of disorder and crime; and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.[23]I am also satisfied for similar reasons as were Knowles J in Wolverhampton Car Cruising at [80] and Hill J in Enfield Car Cruising at [52]-[54] that car cruising poses a ‘risk of harm’ (i.e. the injured spectator in January 2026 and effect on residents in all areas). So, the test is met for attaching a power of arrest under under s.27 Police and Justice Act 2007, although it excludes spectators, as it did in both of those other cases.

Strict Limits

[24]As Knowles J also said in Wolverhampton Car Cruising at [51g-j] as quoted above, the actual respondents to the injunction (i.e. those affected by it) must be identified as precisely as possible, it must spell out its prohibition clearly and extend no further than necessary, including strict territorial and temporal limits. On 16th June 2026, I observed the original draft order was far too wide. The order I made on 19th June is more focused:a. The original draft order would have prohibited two or more people gathering with the ‘intention’ of car cruising. That went beyond the tried and tested order in Birmingham approved in Sharif, which the order I am making essentially follows.b. The original draft covered the whole of both Councils’ territories, despite no evidence of car cruising in most wards of Kensington and the northern wards of Westminster. I have limited the injunction to Kensington’s Brompton and Hans Town Ward (covering Exhibition Road and surrounding roads, including Brompton Road and Thurloe Place); and Westminster’s Knightsbridge and Belgravia, Hyde Park, West End and St James Wards. All these have been affected by car-cruising.c. The original draft envisaged a review hearing after one year and no expiry date, which in effect would have been a quasi-final injunction. Instead, I have provided for a return date within a few weeks on 30th July 2026 (or such other date in that week as the Court lists and the Councils advertise). At that hearing, the Court will consider when to list a review and whether to limit the injunction to a fixed period. This will also enable anyone affected by the order to apply to vary it or set it aside.

Procedural Fairness

[25]Procedural fairness requirements for these injunctions were listed in Wolverhampton Car Cruising at [51e, f, k, l and m]. For example, as public advertisement had not been done before 16th June as required, I re-listed it for that to be done before 19th June, as it was. I also directed further evidence to ensure ‘full disclosure’ under (e) and (f). My injunction also directs ‘alternative service’ of the claim and injunction under Civil Procedure Rules 6.15, 6.27 and 81.4, as specified at Schedule 3 of the injunction (which are modelled on the Birmingham order). In short, the injunction must not only be published on the Councils’ websites, but there must also be media releases publicising them (which there have been). The last step is publication of my reasons for the order before before it comes into force on 23rd June: this judgment, which now concludes.