RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (DERBYSHIRE) LIMITED v DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL & Anor.
[2022] EWHC 1209 (TCC)
Ineos Upstream Limited v Joseph Boyd & Anor.
8 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 214 (Ch)
High Court
Companies got injunctions to stop protests at fracking sites. Protesters fought back, and eventually all the injunctions were cancelled. The judge decided the protesters won and the companies have to pay their legal bills. The case is now closed.
Key Facts
- •This case concerns a reconsideration of a costs order from 2017 relating to five injunctions against Persons Unknown in relation to fracking sites.
- •The injunctions were initially granted in 2017 and subsequently discharged.
- •Two defendants, Boyd (D6) and Corré (D7), actively challenged the injunctions, raising concerns about their impact on the right to protest.
- •The Court of Appeal discharged some injunctions and remitted the costs issue back to the High Court.
- •The High Court judge reconsiders the costs order in light of subsequent events, including the discharge of all injunctions and the claimants' conduct.
Legal Principles
Broad Discretion in Costs Orders
CPR 44.2(1)
General Rule: Unsuccessful party pays costs
CPR 44.2(1)
Determining the Successful Party: Fact-sensitive and nuanced, considering factors in CPR 44.2(4)
CPR 44.2(4)
Issues-based Costs Orders: Cautious approach unless clearly appropriate
Various authorities cited in section 8
Overriding Objective: Common sense, pragmatic approach to costs
Overriding objective mentioned in section 5
Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Right to protest (Articles 10 and 11)
Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, HRA 1998, section 12(3) HRA
Injunctions against Persons Unknown: Clarification of limits and requirements
Various authorities cited and discussed, especially the Court of Appeal decision in 2019 and subsequent cases.
CPR 38: Discontinuance of Claims
CPR 38
Court's Inherent Power to Strike Out Claims: CPR 3.3, CPR 3.4, CPR 3.1(2)(m)
CPR 3.3, CPR 3.4, CPR 3.1(2)(m)
Outcomes
Claimants to pay defendants' costs of the remitted costs order on a standard basis.
Defendants were the overall successful party, considering the discharge of injunctions and claimants' delays.
Claim struck out.
Proceedings serve no useful purpose; claims against all persons unknown have been dismissed or discontinued.
Similar Cases
Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Anor v Matthew Hudson
[2024] EWHC 1302 (Ch)
The National Highways Limited v Persons Unknown & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1073 (KB)
ABC & Ors v Derbyshire County Council & Ors (No. 2: Costs)
[2023] EWHC 1337 (KB)
John Riordan & Ors v Moon Beever Solicitors
[2023] EWHC 659 (SCCO)