In Valero Energy Ltd and others v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB) the High Court has set out practical guidelines for determining whether summary judgment and a final injunction should be awarded following the decision in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies [2023] UKSC 47.
The claimants were part of a large petrochemical group which owned or had a right to possession of eight sites in England and Wales targeted by four organisations – Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Youth Climate Swarm – who trespassed or stayed on the sites, blocked access to them, were involved in suspected tortious behaviour and the claimants feared would be involved in further such behaviour at the sites and relevant access roads.
Interim injunctions granted in March 2022 were extended when protests continued. The claimants sought summary judgment and a final injunction for five years with annual reviews. The defendants did not enter an appearance or defence.
Substantive and procedural guidelines and whether the claimant satisfied them
- There must be a civil cause of action. Satisfied by fear of trespass, crime and public and private nuisance at the eight sites and access roads.
- There must be full and frank disclosure by the claimant.
- There must be sufficient and detailed evidence to justify the court finding that the immediate fear is proven on the balance of probabilities and no trial is required. Evidence showed fully justified fears that named defendants and/or UPs in connection with the four organisations would commit trespass and nuisance at the eight sites.
- There must be no realistic defence. No defence filed and claimant addressed potential human rights defences.
- There must be compelling justification for an injunction against PUs and named defendants. Balance of convenience favoured final injunction.
- The injunction must be necessary and proportionate to the need to protect the claimant’s right. All eight sites were part of the national infrastructure, together with the dangers in shutting down or restarting any refinery site and threats to continue action towards a more excessive limit.
- The claimant must show that damages would not be an adequate remedy. None of the named defendants offered to pay costs or damages.
- The PUs must be clearly and plainly identified by reference to the tortious conduct to be prohibited and defined geographical boundaries. Satisfied by reference to feared torts and by boundaries on coloured plans.
- The prohibitions must be set out in clear words and not framed in technical terms. Satisfied, no prohibition of lawful conduct on public highways save to the extent necessary and proportionate.
- The prohibitions must mirror the torts claimed or feared.
- The prohibitions must be defined by clear geographic boundaries if possible.
- The duration of the final injunction should be only such as reasonably necessary to protect the claimant’s legal rights. Satisfied in light of threats made.
- The proceedings, evidence, application and draft order must be served by alternative means sanctioned by the court.
- The PUs must be given the right to apply to set aside or vary the injunction.
- Provision must be made for reviewing a final injunction in the future. Satisfied by annual reviews.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
