Exolum Pipeline System Limited & ORS v Persons Unknown
[2024] EWHC 1015 (KB)
Valero Energy Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors
26 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 134 (KB)
High Court
Oil companies got a court order to stop protesters from trespassing and disrupting their operations. The judge said the protesters' actions were too dangerous, and the companies needed protection.
Key Facts
- •Valero Energy Ltd and related companies sought a final injunction against individuals connected to environmental protest groups (Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain, Youth Climate Swarm) to prevent trespass and disruption at their eight oil sites.
- •Previous interim injunctions had been granted but protests continued, resulting in numerous arrests.
- •The defendants (named individuals and persons unknown) did not appear at the hearing.
- •The claimants presented extensive evidence of past protests and ongoing threats.
- •The court considered the balance between the claimants' right to property and the defendants' rights to protest under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment can be granted if the defendant has no realistic prospect of success.
CPR Part 24
A final injunction is a discretionary remedy granted where it is just and convenient to do so.
Senior Courts Act 1981, s. 37
In quia timet injunctions, the claimant must prove a real and imminent risk of a tort being committed.
Ineos Upstream v Boyd [2019] 4 WLR 100
Injunctions against persons unknown require clear identification of the conduct and geographic boundaries, and must be proportionate to the threat.
Canada Goose v Persons Unknown [2021] WLR 2802; Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies [2023] UKSC 47
Peaceful protest is a Convention right, but this does not justify trespass or criminal damage.
Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWCA 357
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted for the claimants.
The court found the claimants had a realistic prospect of success and the defendants had no realistic prospect of a successful defense. The evidence demonstrated a compelling justification for the injunction to protect the claimants' sites and the public from imminent threats of trespass, criminal damage, and nuisance.
Final injunction granted against persons unknown and named defendants.
The injunction was deemed necessary and proportionate to protect the claimants' property rights and prevent serious harm, balancing the claimants' rights with the defendants' rights to protest. The court found that the defendants' actions were not at the core of their Article 10 and 11 rights and that there were no less restrictive means available to achieve the aim of protecting the Claimants’ civil rights and property.