How did I know you would make that comment F451!
The reason the Council got the injunction this time, with easy, was because there is no one on the site, they all left, so there is no real respondents to the injunction.
Had they tried to get an injunction in 2001 when this all started, it is far from certain that the injunction would have been awarded. As I've said several times, an injunction is a discretionary award which may not necessarily be awarded, particular when another, legal remedy, is available. In this case, there was a legal remedy was available, enforcement notices.
You have to realise that the Courts don't just hand out injunctions left, right and centre. They are a remedy which is at the Court's discretion to award, and they generally don't award them when another remedy is available.
Furthermore the injunction would have breached the human rights of the occupiers, and so proportionality would have applied. It would not have been proportionate to ban all occupation of the site, when, with enforcement notices the occupation could have been made legal and therefore the injunction would probably not have been awarded.