UK Oil & Gas Investments Plc & Ors v Persons Unknown Who Are Protestors...

Interim injunctions may be granted against persons unknown where the claimant cannot identify an amorphous group of potential wrongdoers and the prohibited conduct is described with sufficient clarity. A quia timet injunction requires a real and imminent risk of infringement, but imminence means that the remedy is not premature; the threatened act need not be on the point of happening.

Convention rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly do not protect trespass, dangerous interference with vehicles, unreasonable obstruction of the highway, or unlawful interference with property and economic rights. Peaceful protest remains lawful, and any order must be confined to evidenced unlawful conduct and expressed clearly.

The claimants, companies engaged in lawful onshore oil and gas exploration and extraction, sought interim injunctions against named defendants and several categories of persons unknown. The application concerned the Horse Hill and Broadford Bridge sites and the claimants’ head office.

The claimants relied on trespass, public nuisance, trespass to goods, interference with economic interests, intimidation, interference with rights of way and conspiracy. The defendants challenged the persons unknown procedure, the evidential basis for the proposed restraints, and their compatibility with Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The central issues were whether injunctive relief was necessary and proportionate, whether the threatened harm was sufficiently imminent and real, and what terms could lawfully be imposed.

1. Relief. Interim injunctions were granted in reduced terms concerning the Horse Hill and Broadford Bridge Sites. No injunction was granted concerning the Head Office because the evidence disclosed only an isolated past incident and no real and imminent risk of recurrence.
2. Persons unknown. It was permissible to proceed solely against persons unknown. The protestors formed an amorphous group, some used aliases, and an injunction against named individuals could readily be circumvented. The descriptions were sufficiently clear, except for the proposed category based on watching, besetting, intimidating or assaulting. The latter was removed because the terminology was archaic or unclear and was unsupported by sufficient evidence.
3. Interim and quia timet relief. The court applied the approach in Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown and the American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd principles, subject to the higher threshold under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The applicable likelihood was more likely than not. A quia timet injunction required a real and imminent risk of infringement causing loss and damage; imminence meant that the remedy was not premature.
4. Rights and proportionality. Articles 10 and 11 were engaged, but they were qualified rights. Lawful protest on the highway had to be balanced against the claimants’ property rights, rights of access and egress, and lawful business activities. The evidence established a real risk of renewed trespass, lock-ons, lorry-surfing, unreasonable slow walking, obstruction and supplier targeting. Damages were inadequate because responsibility was difficult to identify and the losses included substantial security and business costs.
5. Slow walking and supplier targeting. Slow walking intended to block vehicles by proceeding as slowly as possible was not a reasonable use of the highway. The police’s tolerance of such conduct and acquittals in Magistrates’ Court proceedings did not determine its civil reasonableness. Injunctions could restrain evidenced unlawful targeting of identified subcontractors and suppliers, but unsupported prohibitions on threatening, abusive or intimidating conduct, damage or removal of equipment, and similar matters were omitted.
6. Final form of order. The injunction had to identify precisely what was prohibited, preserve lawful protest, remove the words “instructing” and “encouraging”, and revise the provisions concerning combining, supplier targeting and the penal notice. The claimants were directed to prepare a revised draft.