Thurrock Council & Anor v Madeleine Adams & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2576 (KB)
Esso Petroleum Company Limited v Scott Breen & Anor
31 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2013 (KB)
High Court
Esso's new oil pipeline was being disrupted by protestors. A judge agreed that the protests were illegal and gave Esso a court order to stop them. The order is temporary and only affects the pipeline construction area.
Key Facts
- •Esso Petroleum Company Limited (Claimant) sought a permanent injunction against Scott Breen and persons unknown (Defendants) to restrain unlawful protests targeting the Southampton to London Oil Pipeline Project.
- •The Pipeline's construction is authorized by the Southampton to London Pipeline Development Consent Order 2020.
- •Numerous protests, including damage to property and equipment, had occurred prior to the application.
- •Defendants did not appear and were not represented at the trial.
- •The Claimant's cause of action was conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, encompassing trespass to land, trespass to goods, and private nuisance.
Legal Principles
Principles for granting injunctions against persons unknown in protestor cases.
Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd v. Persons Unknown [2020] 1 WLR 2802, [82]
Requirements for a final injunction: cause of action, Human Rights Act 1998 compliance (service and Articles 10 & 11 justification), and Canada Goose guidance.
Various case law (London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Canada Goose, Human Rights Act 1998)
Elements of the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means.
Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] 4 WLR 29, [18]
Proportionality test for interference with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR rights.
DPP v. Ziegler [2021] 3 WLR 179, In re Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (NI) Bill [2023] 2 WLR 33
Outcomes
The Claimant's application for a permanent injunction was granted.
The Claimant established the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, and the injunction satisfied the Canada Goose requirements and proportionality test under the Human Rights Act 1998.