Mrs Justice Farbey
Case No: KB-2022-001142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr T Morshead, KC appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The Defendants did not appear and were not represented
This is a review of the order of Bennathan J made on 29 April 2022. It is the second review. The claimants seek the continuation of the injunction with a further review in around 18 months' time.
The background is as follows. The claimants are importers, exporters and distributors of oil and chemical products. In order to carry out their business, they own and operate bulk liquid storage terminals in the United Kingdom. By a claim issued under CPR Part 8 on 11 April 2022, the claimants sought an injunction against persons unknown in relation to activities at seven of their terminals in England. The target of the injunction was and remains environmental protesters.
The claimant's injunction application followed a protest at and in the vicinity of the terminal at Grays. According to the evidence filed by the claimants, on 1 April 2022, protesters climbed on top of tankers they had stopped on the access road to the Grays site. Some of the protester chained or glued themselves to fuel tankers. Fuel tanker tyres were let down. By the next morning, the protesters had dug a tunnel under an access road, and some of the protesters were in the tunnel.
There was some further protester activity on 5 April 2022 of a lesser sort. According to the evidence, on 10 April 2022, protesters gained access to the Grays site by climbing over the boundary fence using ladders. They gained access to areas classed as hazardous under health and safety regulations because they may contain an explosive atmosphere. The protesters had with them mobile phones, which posed a risk of ignition and are therefore prohibited from being on the site. They glued themselves to each other or chained themselves to infrastructure. The protests continued through 11 April 2022. There were further protests at Grays on 13 and 15 April 2022.
I have seen copies of social media postings by Just Stop Oil on 10 and 11 April 2022, which publicise some of the activities at Grays. It is plain from the social media posts that the protesters were expressing their political beliefs. For example, one post says:
“The youth have been holding Grays oil depot for over 24 hours. Young people have had enough of the UK Government's criminal inaction on the climate crisis, which is ultimately going to shorten the lives of so many young people in our society.”
The claimants were concerned that disruptive and dangerous activity would spread to their other sites and so sought relief in this court. The kind of injunction that the claimants sought has come to be known as a “newcomer” injunction because its terms operate against persons who at the time of the injunction were neither defendants nor identifiable and are described on the injunction simply as “persons unknown” (see Wolverhampton City Council and Others v London Gypsies and Travellers and Others [2023] UKSC 47, [2024] 2 WLR 45).
By order dated 6 April 2022, Johnson J granted an interim injunction prohibiting persons unknown, as further described in two different ways in the title of the order, from doing a number of things. On the return date, Bennathan J granted injunctive relief, albeit that he reduced the number and scope of the prohibitions within the injunction. He made a separate non-party disclosure order against various Chief Constables in order that anyone arrested in the course of protesting at or in the vicinity of the claimants' terminals would have their details passed by the police to the claimants with a view to naming them as defendants in the claim.
On 23 January 2023, Soole J reviewed Bennathan J's order. Mr Morshead KC appeared on behalf of the claimants. No one else appeared. Soole J was satisfied that the injunction should not be discontinued. He ordered that it should be reviewed again in February 2024. That is how the matter comes before me today.
Soole J's order imposed various procedural requirements on the claimants, which were intended to bring the proceedings and this second review to the notice of those who might wish to resist the continuation of the injunction. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that those procedural requirements have been met. The court is not aware of any person who wishes to argue that Bennathan J's order should be discontinued. Like Soole J, I have heard from Mr Morshead, and no one else has appeared.
Soole J was provided with updating evidence of developments since Bennathan J's order. Among other things, there was evidence before Soole J that despite the injunction there was further disruptive and dangerous activity at Grays on 23 August 2022, when five protesters gained entry. On 3 May 2022, less than four days after the injunction was made, protesters went to the Clydebank site of Exolum Storage Limited and took actions similar to those taken at Grays.
I have likewise been provided with evidence of developments since Soole J's review. These developments are set out in the fourth witness statement of Mark O'Neill, who has since last year been promoted to being the North West Europe Operations and Maintenance Lead at Exolum International (UK) Limited. He confirms that service and maintenance of the injunction signage around the terminals has continued. Additional security measures have been put in place to make access to the terminals more difficult for the defendants. These measures are intended to ensure the safety of the claimants' staff and visitors as well as the defendants and other members of the public who may be in the vicinity of the terminals.
Mr O'Neill says that the claimants continue to provide assistance to the police in relation to the prosecution of protesters in respect of the protest activity at Grays terminal in April 2022. For example, Mr O'Neill has given evidence to the Magistrates' Court when needed. The claimants wish to use the third-party disclosure order to add named defendants to the injunction order in the event that sufficient evidence can be obtained to do so.
Mr O'Neill confirms that the email address advertised on the injunction signs continues to be monitored for enquiries in respect of the...