addition, there are compelling reasons to protect the staff and visitors at the 8 Sites from the risk of death or personal injury and to protect the public at large who live near the 8 Sites. The risk of explosion may be small, but the potential harm caused by an explosion due to the tortious activities of a protester with a mobile phone or lighter, who has no training in safe handling in relation to fuel in tankers or storage tanks or fuel pipes, could be a human catastrophe. 68. I also take into account the dangers involved in shutting down any refinery site. I take into account that a temporary emergency shutdown had to be put in place at Kingsbury on 7 th April 2022 and the dangers that such safety measures cause on restart. 69. I take into account that no spokesperson for any of the 4 Organisations has agreed to sign undertakings and that 17 Defendants have refused to sign undertakings. I take into account the dark and ominous threats made by Roger Hallam, the asserted co-founder of Just Stop Oil and the statements of those who assert that they speak for the Just Stop Oil and the other organisations, that some will continue action using methods towards a more excessive limit.
Damages not an adequate remedy
70. I consider that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the feared direct action incursions onto or blockages of access at the 8 Sites. None of the named Defendants are prepared to offer to pay costs or damages. 43 have sought to exchange undertakings for the prohibitions in the interim injunctions, but none offered damages or costs. Recovery from PUs is impossible and recovery from named Defendants is wholly uncertain in any event. No evidence has been put before this Court about the 4 Organisations’ finances or structure or legal status or to identify which legal persons hold their bank accounts or what funding or equipment they provided to the protesters or what their legal structure is. Whilst no economic tort is pleaded the damage caused by disruption of supply and of refining works may run into substantial sums as does the cost to the police and emergency services resulting from torts or crimes at the 8 Sites and the access roads thereto. Finally, any health and safety risk, if triggered, could potentially cause fatalities or serious injuries for which damages would not be a full remedy. Persons injured or killed by tortious conduct are entitled to compensation, but they would always prefer to suffer no injury.
(B) Procedural Requirements Identifying PUs
71. In my judgment, as drafted the injunction clearly and plainly identifies the PUs by reference to the tortious conduct to be prohibited and that conduct mirrors the feared torts claimed in the Claim Form. The PUs’ conduct is also limited and defined by reference to clearly defined geographical boundaries on coloured plans.
The terms of the injunction
36
97
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online