Sheffield City Council v Fairhall & Ors

An injunction may be extended or varied where the evidence shows that the prohibited conduct is likely to resume or has developed into new forms. The court must consider whether continuation is necessary and proportionate, having regard to the history of the conduct, the continuing risk, the legitimate aim pursued and the rights affected.

The terms of an injunction may be adjusted to reflect changes of circumstance and to give effect to the purpose of the original order. A variation may therefore address conduct which was not originally foreseen, provided that the revised terms remain reasonable and proportionate.

The claimant sought to extend and vary injunctive relief previously granted by Males J in Sheffield City Council v Fairhall & Others [2017] EWHC 2121 (QB). The injunction restrained direct action interfering with the felling of trees in Sheffield and was due to expire on 25 July 2018.

The application concerned five defendants who were not represented by counsel and persons unknown. The claimant sought a longer duration, a wider definition of safety zone and additional restrictions addressing further forms of protest and obstruction. The central issues were whether continuation and variation of the injunction were justified and proportionate.

1. Extension of injunction. The court was satisfied that the tree-felling programme remained incomplete and that there was a serious risk that direct action would resume without an injunction. The history of the defendants’ conduct, their continuing opposition and the evidence of further works justified continuation for about 18 months.
2. Variation of terms. An injunction may be varied to give effect to the intention of the original order and to take account of changes in circumstances. The court applied the principle stated in Birmingham City Council v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 1601 (QB).
3. The original order was intended to prevent unlawful interference with the tree-felling programme. The agreed re-definition of “safety zone” reasonably addressed conduct such as protestors positioning themselves between barriers and adjacent railings, which obstructed the works without technically entering the former safety zone.
4. The additional restrictions on interference with safety zones, vehicles and contractors were a reasonable and proportionate response to newly developed forms of protest. They struck a fair balance between the protesters’ rights and the claimant’s legitimate aims.
5. The same terms should apply to the five non-counsel-represented defendants and to persons unknown. The court expressly approved the description of persons unknown in the new order. The agreed injunction governed the represented parties until 25 January 2020, and equivalent relief was granted against the remaining defendants and persons unknown.

This was a first-instance application following the earlier judgment of Males J in Sheffield City Council v Fairhall & Others [2017] EWHC 2121 (QB). The present court extended and varied the injunction.