have been no emails or other forms of communication objecting to the injunction. There has been no further disruption at any of the terminals that are subject to the injunction since the 2023 order.
14. Mr O'Neill describes the importance of maintaining the injunction in the following terms:
"38. I believe that the injunction has been an effective deterrent to further protest activity, and the fact that there has not been such activity at the terminals since the 2023 order also supports this belief. 39. Given the fact that Just Stop Oil appear committed to further protest activity until their objective is reached, I consider that it is important for the injunction to continue. 40. The claimants also remain committed to protecting the terminals by all legal means possible, by the additional security measures, assisting the police with prosecutions, and seeking to continue the injunction at the review hearing."
15. In his submissions, Mr Morshead emphasises that the Scottish protest shows that the protesters are well organised and have sought to disrupt the claimant's business where it is not protected by the injunction.
16. Since the last review in this case, the Supreme Court has given its judgment in the Wolverhampton case. In his judgment in that case, with which the other members of the court agreed, Lord Reed observed at paragraph 167(iv) that newcomer injunctions are "constrained by territorial and temporal limitations so as to ensure, as far as practicable, that they neither outflank nor outlast the compelling circumstances relied upon" for their making. 17. At paragraph 235, Lord Reed cautioned against treating as prescriptive in other contexts (such as protester cases) the principles about newcomer injunctions in traveller cases. He went on to state that, in protester cases, the judge must be satisfied that there is a "compelling need" for the order. The duration and geographical scope of the injunction necessary to protect the applicant's rights in any particular case are ultimately matters for the judge having regard to the principles explained by the court. 18. In the context of newcomer traveller injunctions, Lord Reed referred at paragraph 237 to the prospect of appropriate and early review. I do not regard that reference as limited to traveller injunctions in the sense that reviews cannot or should not take place in other cases. I agree with Mr Morshead that it remains good practice to provide for a periodic review even when a final order is made (see Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2022] EWCA Civ 13, [2022] 2 WLR 946, paragraph 108, per Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, with whom the other members of the court agreed).
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
58
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online