Thurrock Council & Anor v Madeleine Adams & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2576 (KB)
Thurrock Council & Anor v Madeline Adams & Ors
30 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2750 (KB)
High Court
Councils successfully got a court order to stop Just Stop Oil protesters from blocking fuel supplies. The order lasts 5 years and includes arrests for breaking the rules. The judge said the protesters' actions were dangerous and the order is fair, even though it limits their right to protest.
Key Facts
- •Thurrock and Essex Councils sought injunctive relief against Just Stop Oil (JSO) protesters blocking fuel terminals.
- •Protests occurred between April 1-15, 2022, involving highway obstruction, trespassing, and tunnelling.
- •Interim injunctions were granted in April and May 2022, and continued pending the Supreme Court decision in *Wolverhampton*.
- •204 of 222 named defendants settled; 26 remained.
- •Defendant Laurie, initially in default, sought to participate, which was granted.
- •Laurie argued injunction terms were too broad, impinging on lawful protest; Councils argued continued risk of harm.
Legal Principles
Highway authorities have a duty to protect public use of highways and prevent obstruction (Highways Act 1980, s.130).
Highways Act 1980, s.130
Local authorities can institute proceedings to prevent public nuisance (Local Government Act 1972, s.222).
Local Government Act 1972, s.222
Power of arrest can be attached to an injunction if there's a significant risk of harm (Police and Justice Act 2006, s.27(3)).
Police and Justice Act 2006, s.27(3)
The High Court can grant injunctions if just and convenient (Senior Courts Act 1981, s.37).
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.37
Anticipatory injunctions require a strong probability of future harm and inadequacy of damages.
TFL v Persons Unknown and others [2023] EWHC 1201 KB at [20]; HS2 Limited v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 2360 (KB) at [99]
Public nuisance can arise from unreasonable obstruction of the highway; unreasonableness is a question of fact.
East Hertfordshire DC v Isobel Hospice Trading Ltd [2001] JPL 597; Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 2945 (Ch); Arla Foods Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1952 (Ch)
The right to peaceful assembly on the highway doesn't extend to committing public nuisance; lawful excuse may be based on Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.
DPP v Ziegler and others [2022] AC 408; Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland-Abortion Services (Northern Ireland) Bill [2023] 2 WLR 33; Arla Foods Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1952 (Ch)
Outcomes
Injunction against remaining named defendants, including Laurie, continued for 5 years with annual reviews.
Past protests involved unlawful and dangerous activities causing significant harm; JSO's continued activism demonstrates ongoing risk; the injunction, while restricting Article 10/11 rights, is proportionate to protect public safety and essential services.
Laurie's application to participate in the proceedings granted.
In the interests of justice to address the real issues, no significant prejudice to claimants.
Power of arrest remains attached to the injunction.
The prohibited activities, even if not inherently violent, carry a significant risk of harm.
Specific objections to the injunction's terms were largely rejected.
The court found the terms were not overly broad and necessary to prevent dangerous and disruptive protests.