5 13. In late March 2022 Mr Justice Butcher issued an interim ex parte injunction on a quia timet basis until trial, expressly stating it was not intended to prohibit lawful protest. He prohibited the Defendants from entering or staying on the 8 sites; impeding access to the 8 sites; damaging the Claimants’ land; locking on or causing or encouraging others to breach the injunction. The Order provided for various alternative methods of service for the unknown persons by fixing hard copies of the injunction at the entrances and on access road at the 8 Sites, publishing digital copies online at a specific website and sending emails to the 4 Organisations. 66 In the Claim Form the details of the claims were set out. The Claimants sought a quia timet (since he fears) injunction, fearing that persons would trespass into the 8 Sites and cause danger or damage therein and disrupt the processes carried out therein, or block access to the 8 Sites thereby committing a private nuisance on private roads or a public nuisance on public highways. The Claimants relied on the letter sent by Just Stop Oil dated 14th February 2022 to Her Majesty's Government threatening intervention unless various demands were met. Just Stop Oil asserted they planned to commence action from the 22nd of March 2022. Police intelligence briefings supported the risk of trespass and nuisance at the Claimants’ 8 Sites. 3 unidentified groups of persons in connection with the 4 Organisations were categorised as Defendants in the claim as follows: (1) those trespassing onto the 8 Sites; (2) those blockading or obstructing access to the 8 Sites; (3) those carrying out a miscellany of other feared torts such as locking on, tunnelling or encouraging others to commit torts at the 8 Sites or on the access roads thereto. The Claim Form was amended by order of Bennathan J. in April 2022; Re amended by order of Cotter J. in September 2022 and re re amended in July 2023 by order of Bourne J. 10.1 Are the elements of CPR Part 24 satisfied so that summary judgment can be entered? 10.2 Should a final injunction against unknown persons and named Defendants be granted on the evidence presented by the Claimants? 10.3 What should the terms of any such injunction be? The Claimants also made various tidying up applications which I can deal with briefly here. They applied to amend the Claimants’ names, to change the word “limited” to a shortened version thereof to match the registered names of the companies. They applied to delete two Defendants, whom they accepted were wrongly added to the proceedings (and after the hearing a third). They applied to make minor alterations to the descriptions of the 1st and 2nd Defendants who are unknown persons. The Claimants also applied for permission to apply for summary judgment. This application was made retrospectively to satisfy the requirements of CPR rule 24.4. None of these applications was opposed. I granted all of them and they are to be encompassed in a set of directions which will be issued in an Order. The ancillary applications 11. Pleadings and chronology of the action 12.
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online