MRS JUSTICE HILL Approved Judgment
Valero v Persons Unknown (2025 review)
“…allow[ing] a continued assessment of whether circumstances have changed so as make the continuation of the injunction appropriate.”
23. Earlier this year, in Transport for London v Persons Unknown and Others [2025] EWHC 55 (KB) (“ TfL ”) at [54]-[57], Morris J took a similar approach. At [55], he observed that:
“TfL has already provided detailed evidence at a full trial and the Court has, on two occasions, already made a full determination of the issue of risk and the balance of interests. In my judgment, in those circumstances there needed to be some material change in order to justify a conclusion that the Final Injunctions should not continue.”
The evidence, submissions and decision 24.
In support of the application the Claimants relied on the evidence filed to date, set out in some detail in Ritchie J’s judgment, as well as updating evidence in the form of the sixth witness statement of Mr Blackhouse dated 20 November 2024 (“DB6”) and the sixth witness statement of Ms Pinkerton dated 19 November 2024 (“EP6”). 25. Ritchie J made the following finding as to the level of risk on the basis of the evidence available to him on 26 January 2024:
“64. In my judgment the evidence shows that the Claimants have a good cause of action and fully justified fears that they face a high risk and an imminent threat that the remaining 17 named Defendants (who would not give undertakings) and/or that UPs [Unknown Persons] will commit the pleaded torts of trespass and nuisance at the 8 Sites in connection with the 4 Organisations”.
26. He went on to find that the Defendants did not have a realistic defence to the claim; that the balance of convenience and justice weighed in favour of granting the final injunction to the Claimants; and that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the Claimants: [65]-[70]. 27. He was also satisfied that the various procedural requirements set out in the case law were satisfied by the injunction proposed: [71]-[78]. 28. I take these findings as my starting point, in accordance with the legal framework summarised above. 29. The updating evidence served in support of the review application, which I accept, makes clear that there exists a continued threat of trespass and nuisance at the 8 Sites. 30. Mr Blackhouse provided further evidence of the continuing threat, vulnerability and risks, in particular at paragraphs 4.1-5.4 of DB6. For example, he referred to the fact that from his regular meetings with the police and local resilience forums in the areas where the Claimants have assets, his understanding is that the threat remains the same.
183
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator