Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1201 (KB)
The National Highways Limited v Persons Unknown & Anor.
5 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1073 (KB)
High Court
A court order stopping climate activists from blocking roads was kept in place for another year. Some activists who promised not to block roads anymore were let off the hook, but others will have to pay for the court case. The court also said it will check if the police are giving information about the protesters fairly.
Key Facts
- •National Highways Limited (NHL) sought extension and variation of an injunction against Insulate Britain (IB) protesters.
- •The injunction, initially against persons unknown, later included named defendants.
- •Protests caused significant disruption to the M25 and other strategic roads.
- •IB and Just Stop Oil (JSO) protests continued, despite injunctions.
- •Some defendants were found in contempt of court.
- •The Court of Appeal amended the injunction to make it a final order.
- •The review hearing addressed injunction extension, schedule amendments, alternative service, and costs.
Legal Principles
Test for anticipatory injunctions: (1) Strong possibility of imminent rights infringement; (2) Harm grave and irreparable, damages inadequate.
Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 2456 (Ch), adopted by Bennathan J
Precautionary injunctions require imminent and real risk of harm.
Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 100; Canada Goose Retail Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] 1 WLR 2802; HS2 Limited-v-Persons Unknown and Named Defendants [2022] EWHC 2360 (KB)
Injunctions against persons unknown require caution, clear terms, and correspondence to threatened tort; lawful conduct should not be banned unless necessary.
Ineos and Canada Goose
Balancing protest rights with public rights to use highways; lawful protest causing some interference may be tolerated, but the balance is determined by law, not protestors.
DPP v Jones; NHL v Heyatawin
CPR 24.2: Summary judgment if claimant/defendant has no real prospect of success; CPR 24.5 also considered.
Civil Procedure Rules
Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982, reg. 15: Pedestrians prohibited on motorways except for emergencies.
Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982
Costs generally follow the event; unsuccessful party pays successful party's costs, but court has discretion.
CPR 44.2
Alternative service requires good reason and a method reasonably expected to bring proceedings to defendant's attention.
CPR 6.15; Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2019] 1 WLR 1471; Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport and High Speed Two (HS2) Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 357; Canada Goose
Outcomes
Injunction extended for one year against those not providing undertakings.
Continuing risk of disruption to strategic road network; public statements and actions of JSO coalition indicate no cessation of protests.
Amendments to the schedule of defendants allowed: removal of some defendants (undertakings/death), addition of six new defendants.
Undertakings provided, death of defendant, and evidence of recent protests by new defendants.
Alternative service allowed for persons unknown and named defendants.
Widespread knowledge of injunction due to media coverage and previous actions; difficulty in effecting personal service.
Costs awarded to Claimant against those who didn't provide undertakings.
Claimant was successful; defendants' failure to engage with proceedings.
Third-party disclosure order’s continuation to be reviewed, with further submissions invited.
Concerns regarding the order's basis and impact on those arrested but not charged.