RWE Npower plc & Ors v Carrol & Ors

An interim injunction restraining harassment and trespass may continue where there are reasonable grounds to fear further unlawful conduct. The order must, however, be framed proportionately and must preserve lawful peaceful protest. Under representative proceedings, persons represented by a named defendant are bound by an order but an order cannot be enforced against an unnamed represented person without the court’s permission under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 19.6(4)(b). Advance permission should not be granted because the individual’s circumstances and opportunity to make representations must be considered. The court also held that lawful protesters and persons willing to use unlawful means do not necessarily have the same interest for representative-proceedings purposes.

The claimants sought continuation of an injunction granted without notice on 14 February 2007. The injunction restrained harassment of the claimants and their employees and trespass on land at Radley Lakes, where the first claimant intended to dispose of power-station ash. The defendants were associated with protests against that plan, including an occupation of Sandles House.

The application raised issues concerning the continuing threat, the permissible width of the injunction, representative defendants under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, and whether the order could be enforced in advance against unnamed persons represented by the first defendant.

1. Continuation of relief. The evidence established reasonable grounds to fear that some defendants and associated protestors would continue to trespass or harass employees. The injunction should therefore continue in principle.
2. Proportionality. The restraints had to be no wider than necessary and had to protect the right of peaceful protest. The court modified the order concerning publication of identifying information, permitted repetition of information voluntarily placed in the public domain, qualified the trespass provision by reference to permission, and confined the restriction on protest camps near Lake E to Thrupp Lane and the BOAT within 400 yards.
3. Representative proceedings. Under rule 19.6, persons must have the same interest. Lawful protesters did not share the same interest as persons prepared to harass or use unlawful means. The revised class of persons acting in concert with the defendants and willing to use unlawful means was sufficiently clear and certain.
4. Enforcement against represented persons. Following the reasoning of Huntingdon Life Sciences Group PLC and others v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, [2007] EWHC 522 QB, the order was binding on represented persons but could not be enforced against a person who was not a party without permission under rule 19.6(4)(b). Advance permission would deprive that person of an opportunity to address the court’s individual circumstances. Section 3A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 did not alter that conclusion.
5. Disposition. The injunction was continued subject to the stated modifications. The court declined to determine whether other legal mechanisms might permit arrest in a hypothetical prosecution.

The judgment records that an injunction was granted without notice by Mr Justice Calvert-Smith on 14 February 2007. The present court continued that injunction with modifications. No appellate history is stated.