7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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.
13. Mr O'Neill confirms that the email address advertised on the injunction signs continues to be monitored for enquiries in respect of the injunction. A request for copies of the claim documents referred to in the injunction order was made in July 2023, but there
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
57
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online