24. I agree with Mr Morshead. I have kept firmly in mind the high public interest in the right to express beliefs and to engage in legitimate public protest. If the American Cyanamid principles apply, I accept that there is and remains a good arguable case for relief and that damages are not an adequate remedy. I see no reason at this juncture to take a different view to Soole J in these regards.
25. I accept that the test of balance of convenience would add nothing to the test of compelling need. If the test of compelling need is met, then on the facts of this case the full panoply of the American Cyanamid requirements is met.
26. I am prepared to accept that, unless restrained, there is at least some risk, and probably a high risk, that some activity would resume at some point within an imminent period. There is at least some risk, and probably a high risk, that if protest activities were to take place at the claimants' sites there would be damage. There would not only be damage to property but also a risk to life and limb. The protesters would not know which tankers were full of explosive material and which were empty. They would not know whether even an empty tanker was clean or retained residual inflammable material. They would not know which parts of the claimants' infrastructure were dangerous and which were safe. In dangerous parts of the site, they may not know that the use of mobile phones, which has been an integral part of some of the protests in order to publicise the activities on social media, is a danger to life. 27. In terms of the court's duty to protect the protesters' Convention rights, the claimants have complied with the steps set down by the court to bring the injunction and today's hearing to the attention of those who may want the injunction discontinued. The court has sought to protect the right to protest through the full use of its case management powers.
28. The review is not a rubber stamp but has involved the court probing counsel as to its concerns for the purpose of ensuring that the continuation of the injunction is proportionate and that its duration is no longer than is necessary.
29. I have been provided with no reason to discontinue or vary the order made by Bennathan J. On the other hand, it is notable, as I have said, that the evidence is that the protesters breached the Grays perimeter, went onto its property and acted in a dangerous way that could have led to an explosion with risk to property and ultimately with risk to life and limb. There is, in my judgment, a compelling need for the order to be continued. 30. I will order that the injunction is to continue in force until the next review. I am concerned that a review period of 18 months may lead to drift. The next review will be listed on the first available date after 20 February 2025. There will be notice requirements as set out in the draft order supplied by the claimants.
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
60
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online