THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Bourne
Case No: QB-2022-001317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Caroline Bolton and Natalie Pratt (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard LLP) for the Claimants
Jamie Burton KC (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing date: 9 October 2024
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10am on Wednesday 30 October 2024 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
Introduction
This is the final hearing of a claim by two local authorities for injunctive relief to restrain protest activities in the vicinity of several fuel and oil terminals in their areas by members of environmental campaign groups, notably Just Stop Oil (“JSO”). The litigation arises from protest activity which (it is common ground) took place in and around the Thurrock area between 1 and 15 April 2022.
The litigation began on 24 April 2022, when the Claimants made a without notice application for an interim injunction against 222 named Defendants and 7 categories of persons unknown. Ritchie J granted the order sought, restraining acts of public nuisance by obstruction of the highway, acts of trespass including tunnelling under or near the highway and other apprehended acts of public nuisance and trespass, and attaching a power of arrest. Provision was also made for service of the Claim Form.
CPR 8.3 requires a defendant to file an acknowledgment of service within 14 days of service of the Claim Form, indicating whether the claim is contested. By CPR 8.4, a defendant who fails to file an acknowledgment of service in time may attend the hearing of the claim but may not take part in the hearing unless the Court gives permission.
At a return date on 27 May 2022, HHJ Simon (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) continued the injunction.
On 26 January 2023, Foster J granted an application, on paper and without a hearing, to adjourn the final hearing of the claim for injunctive relief pending the decision of the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others (“ Wolverhampton”) which would be of particular relevance to the claims against persons unknown, and to continue the injunction and power of arrest in the meantime.
The Supreme Court handed down judgment in Wolverhampton on 29 November 2023. Various case management orders were then made to progress the matter towards this final hearing. On 20 December 2023, Jefford J ordered a case management hearing to be listed to progress the matter to trial.
That hearing took place before Collins Rice J on 19 April 2024. By that time, 204 of the 222 named defendants had settled the claim by giving undertakings. The Claimants had sought to add another 33 named defendants and 16 of those had consented to being added and had settled by way of undertakings. The claim was discontinued against a defendant who had died. Some 34 named defendants had not settled.
Collins Rice J gave separate directions affecting the unnamed and the named Defendants.
A hearing was listed on 12 July 2024 to review the continuation of the injunction against the unnamed Defendants only.
Named defendants, on the other hand, were ordered to file and serve any evidence on which they wished to rely by 11 September 2024. The “final hearing of the Claim” was listed on 9 October 2024, though it seems to me that “the Claim”, in context, meant the claim against the named Defendants only.
Ahead of that final hearing, the Claimants were required to serve a bundle (and provision was made for service of skeleton arguments) only on “those named Defendants who have acknowledged service of the Claim and/or filed evidence in defence of the Claim or indicated that they intend to participate in the final hearing of the Claim (if any)”.
At the review hearing on 12 July 2024, Julian Knowles J ordered that the injunction against the unnamed Defendants should continue for 5 years with annual reviews. As at 9 October 2024 when the hearing before me took place, the judgment of Julian Knowles J was due to be handed down on 11 October, but his draft judgment had been shown to me, to the Claimants and to Mr Laurie and his representatives on terms that they respect the usual embargo. I directed that any further submissions arising from that judgment, once handed down, be made in writing by 18 October. In the event, no further submissions were received.
The Claimants now pursue their claim against 26 named Defendants who have not settled the claim. Until 11 September 2024, no named Defendant had acknowledged service or defended the claim.
On 11 September 2024, the 110th named Defendant, Mr Charles Philip Laurie, known as Phil Laurie, sought to file an acknowledgement of service and applied for an extension of time to do so, and for permission to participate in the proceedings.
The Claimants pointed out that the wrong form had been used to acknowledge service so Mr Laurie then applied on 27 September 2024 for a further extension and relief from sanction in respect of the late service.
Mr Laurie's applications
In a witness statement Mr Laurie explained that when the proceedings were served on him in 2022, he did not understand that it was necessary to file and serve an AOS. In the course of 2024, he became aware that some Defendants were settling the claims against them. He first consulted a solicitor on 19 August 2024 and then took advice from counsel, which led to his making his first application.
I have read the evidence of Mr Laurie's solicitor, who explained that the use of the wrong form was an administrative error.
The Claimants have stated that they are neutral on the applications to extend time and for relief from sanction and for permission to participate.
I have decided that it is in the interests of justice to allow those applications, enabling the Court to deal with the real issues between the parties. As Mr Laurie's counsel, Jamie Burton KC, points out, the order of Collins Rice J appeared to contemplate defendants filing evidence in opposition to the claim even though none had acknowledged service in time and, since Mr Laurie did file his evidence by the deadline, no practical prejudice has been caused to the Claimants by the lateness of his participation or by the use of the wrong form. In these unusual circumstances, although the default was serious and the explanation for it is not meritorious, it is just and equitable to grant the relief sought.
The substantive issues
Mr Laurie opposes the continuation of any injunctive relief against him, and he also raises more general objections of principle to some of the terms of the injunction as it currently stands.
In his witness statement dated 11 September 2024 he explains that he is a Quaker and describes activism as the practical side of his faith. As a retired engineer he states that he understands the science relevant to climate change. He sets out his fears about the likely catastrophic effects of climate change. He places responsibility on fossil fuel companies for selling products which cause climate change, and on Government for not taking sufficient action. He states that his faith “requires me to take action to alert people to the dangers of climate change and put pressure on the Government and fossil fuel companies change their...
