Approved Judgment
That would fail to reflect the nature of the guidance given by the Supreme Court, that makes it clear that the remedy is to be carefully scrutinised and only granted in respect of where there is a compelling need for the protection of the rights in the locality .
44. In High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB) Ritchie J, was considering an application for the continuation of an interim injunction against protesters. In addressing how a review hearing should be approached, he said: 32. … on a review of an interim injunction against PUs and named Defendants, this Court is not starting de novo. The Judges who have previously made the interim injunctions have made findings justifying the interim injunctions. It is not the task of the Court on review to query or undermine those. However, it is vital to understand why they were made, to read and assimilate the findings, to understand the sub-strata of the quia timet, the reasons for the fear of unlawful direct action. Then it is necessary to determine, on the evidence, whether anything material has changed. If nothing material has changed, if the risk still exists as before and the claimant remains rightly and justifiably fearful of unlawful attacks, the extension may be granted so long as procedural and legal rigour has been observed and fulfilled. 33. On the other hand, if material matters have changed, the Court is required to analyse the changes, based on the evidence before it, and in the full light of the past decisions, to determine anew, whether the scope, details and need for the full interim injunction should be altered. To do so, the original thresholds for granting the interim injunction still apply. 45. In Arla Foods v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1952 at [128], Jonathan Hilliard KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) described the annual review process as “… allow[ing] a continued assessment of whether circumstances have changed so as make the continuation of the injunction appropriate .” 46. Morris J took a similar approach in Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Ors [2025] EWHC 55 (KB). At [54]-[55] he said: In the present cases, 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. (For example, as in the HS2 case where Phase 2 of the HS project had subsequently been abandoned: see paragraph 40 above). 47. This approach was approved and applied by Hill J in Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 207 (KB) (‘ Valero’ ) and in Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd v Persons Unknown [2025] 2 WLUK 578 . 48. When Basingstoke v Loveridge came back before the court on a review hearing in March 2025, a somewhat different approach was adopted by the judge. Ms Kirsty Brimelow KC, sitting as a deputy judge of this court, considered the observation of Freedman J at [56] – [57] to the effect that “ As this matter goes forward, there needs
35
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator