Landmark High Court Decision Establishes Grounds for Injunctions Against Unknown Protestors Targeting Critical Infrastructure

Introduction

The High Court of Justice decision in Valero Energy Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors [2024] EWHC 134 (KB) is a comprehensive judgment addressing the legal framework for granting injunctions against both named and “persons unknown” defendants in the context of anticipated unlawful protests. This case delineates the standards for summary judgments and sets a precedent on the extent to which injunctions can be used as preventive measures against protest-related tortious activities targeting critical infrastructure.

Key Facts

The claimants, forming part of the Valero Group, owned several petrochemical sites across the UK. They sought protection from anticipated unlawful activities by members of environmental protest groups, including “Just Stop Oil,” “Extinction Rebellion,” “Insulate Britain,” and “Youth Climate Swarm.” Following explicit threats and direct disruptive actions at the claimants’ sites, the claimants sought an interim injunction and eventually, summary judgment for a final five-year injunction to restrain any future incursions.

Despite proper service, none of the named defendants appeared or responded, prompting the court to address the application as an ex parte proceeding. The judgment delves into previous incidents of trespass, obstruction, and nuisance conducted by the protestors, underscoring the substantial risks posed to the safety of both the sites and the general public.

Legal Principals

The court’s analysis is grounded on several legal principles and case law precedents:

1. Summary Judgment (CPR Part 24): The judgment reaffirms that the court may grant summary judgment if the defendant shows no realistic prospects of success, and a full trial is unnecessary.

2. Injunctions (Senior Courts Act 1981, S.37): The court reiterates the discretionary power to grant injunctions where just and convenient, including anticipatory relief based on a real and imminent risk of a tort.

3. Persons Unknown: Drawing from cases like Canada Goose v Persons Unknown and Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies, the court outlines requirements for granting injunctions against unidentified defendants, covering aspects such as precise identification, right to apply for variation, and temporal and geographical limits.

4. Human Rights (European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 10 and 11): The court carefully considers the balance between the claimants’ property rights and the respondents’ rights to freedom of expression and assembly, weighing justifications for restricting the latter in favor of the former where necessary and proportionate.

5. Damages as Remedy: The court finds that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the anticipated harm from the defendants’ actions.

Outcomes

The court grants a quasi-final injunction for five years against the named and unknown defendants, with provisions for annual review, to prevent anticipated tortious activities. The judgment highlights that the reduction in protest activity at the claimants’ sites was likely due to the deterrent effect of interim injunctions, emphasizing the need for a final injunction to continue this deterrence. The meticulous application of legal principles to the unique circumstances of the case establishes that damages would not suffice as a remedy and that the injunction strikes a fair balance between the parties’ rights.

Conclusion

Valero Energy Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors is a landmark case that meticulously applies established legal principles in the novel context of environmental protests targeting critical national infrastructure. It sets a careful balance between upholding property rights and ensuring health and public safety while acknowledging protesters’ human rights. The detailed judgment underscores the court’s role in navigating the complex interplay between anticipatory legal remedies and civil liberties amidst the growing phenomenon of environmental activism.