Thurrock Council & Anor v Madeleine Adams & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2576 (KB)
Exolum Pipeline System Limited & ORS v Persons Unknown
20 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 1015 (KB)
High Court
Environmental protesters repeatedly disrupted oil terminals. A court order kept them away, and after review, the judge decided to keep the order in place because of the risk of dangerous protests. The judge made sure the rights of protesters to protest were also protected in the court's decision.
Key Facts
- •Exolum Pipeline System Ltd and others sought an injunction against persons unknown (environmental protesters) to prevent disruptive and dangerous activities at their oil and chemical storage terminals.
- •Protesters engaged in activities such as climbing on tankers, chaining themselves to infrastructure, digging tunnels, and gaining access to hazardous areas.
- •The injunction, a 'newcomer' injunction, was initially granted by Johnson J, modified by Bennathan J, and reviewed twice, once by Soole J and then by Mrs Justice Farbey.
- •The protesters' actions were publicized on social media, indicating their political motivations related to climate change.
- •Since the last review, there had been no further disruption at the terminals subject to the injunction.
- •The Supreme Court's judgment in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers clarified the principles governing newcomer injunctions.
Legal Principles
Newcomer injunctions are constrained by territorial and temporal limitations to ensure they don't outflank or outlast the compelling circumstances for their making.
Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47
In protester cases, there must be a 'compelling need' for a newcomer injunction, balancing the applicant's rights against protesters' Convention rights (Articles 10 and 11).
Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47
Periodic review of injunctions is good practice, even for final orders.
Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2022] EWCA Civ 13
In newcomer injunction applications, the primary question is what is needed for the court to intervene when the persons unknown are unlikely to be present in court.
Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47
The court may protect protesters' rights by imposing strict procedural requirements for notice and by probing the claimant's evidence.
This case, interpreting Wolverhampton
The 'balance of convenience' test of American Cyanamid is not required when a 'compelling need' is shown.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon [1975] AC 396
Outcomes
The injunction against persons unknown was continued.
The court found a compelling need for the injunction due to the high risk of further dangerous and disruptive protests, potential damage to property, and risk to life and limb. The claimants had taken steps to protect protesters' Convention rights through procedural requirements and communication channels.