NATIONAL HIGHWAYS LIMITED v PERSONS UNKNOWN CAUSING THE BLOCKING OF, ENDANGERING, OR PREVENTING THE FREE FLOW OF TRAFFIC ON THE M25 MOTORWAY, A2, A20 AND A2070 TRUNK ROADS AND M2 AND M20 MOTORWAY, A1(M), A3, A12, A13, A21, A23, A30, A414 AND A3113 TRUNK ROADS AND THE M1, M3, M4, M4 SPUR, M11, M26, M23 AND M40 MOTORWAYS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTESTING & ORS.

An injunction is a remedy, not a cause of action. Summary judgment may determine liability or an issue within a substantive claim, but consequential injunctive relief follows only after that determination. For anticipatory injunctions, the claimant must show a strong possibility of imminent infringement and harm so grave and irreparable that damages would be inadequate. Injunctions against persons unknown require clear and precise terms directed to the threatened tort, while preserving lawful conduct where proportionate protection permits it. Protest rights require a fact-sensitive balance between the protestors’ Convention rights and the rights of road users and property holders. Following DPP v Ziegler, road obstruction is not automatically lawful or tortious-free. Evidence for summary judgment must be assessed defendant by defendant.

National Highways Limited brought three related claims arising from Insulate Britain protests on the Strategic Road Network. It sought summary judgment against 133 named defendants, final and interim injunctions against named and unknown persons, a declaration that obstructive protest on the network was unlawful, disclosure orders against police forces, and costs.

Twenty-four named defendants had previously been subject to contempt findings. The remaining 109 had been arrested in connection with protests, but the evidence did not identify their individual conduct sufficiently. A non-party also sought permission to make submissions under rule 40.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The principal issues were the evidential threshold for summary judgment, the scope and service of injunctions against persons unknown, the effect of protest rights, and whether the declaration should be granted.

1. The claims against 10 defendants were dismissed. Summary judgment was granted against the 24 defendants with previous contempt findings, because the evidence provided no realistic basis for a trial issue. Summary judgment was refused against the remaining 109. Arrests, silence, or the absence of a defence did not establish tortious liability, and the evidence had to be assessed individually where fundamental rights were engaged.
2. An injunction was a remedy rather than a cause of action. Under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules, summary judgment could determine a cause of action or an issue, but not a remedy in isolation. The principle in Fourie v Le Roux [2007] 1 WLR 320 was applied.
3. For an anticipatory injunction, the court applied the heightened test summarised in Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 2456 (Ch): a strong possibility of imminent infringement and harm so grave and irreparable that damages would be inadequate. The test was satisfied by the scale of past disruption and public indications of renewed blockade-style protests. The ordinary interim-injunction principles in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 were also applied.
4. Injunctions against unknown defendants required caution, clarity, correspondence between the prohibited acts and the threatened tort, and proportionality, applying Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 100 and Canada Goose Retail Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] 1 WLR 2802. The orders prohibited deliberate carriageway obstruction but preserved the possibility of lawful protest around the roads.
5. The balance under Articles 10 and 11 was fact-sensitive. Political and economic aims and peaceful conduct favoured the protestors, but the absence of geographical significance, complete obstruction, lack of alternative routes, and predictable risks to road users favoured restraint. The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the cause.
6. Under section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998, practicable notification was required. Unserved persons were not bound merely because the order had been placed on a website. Disclosure orders requiring police forces to provide identities and relevant evidence were made, subject to confidentiality provisions.
7. The declaration was refused. After DPP v Ziegler [2022] AC 408, obstruction of the Strategic Road Network was not automatically unlawful or a trespass. A caveated declaration would serve no useful purpose and might confuse later contempt proceedings. Costs were reserved.

First-instance judgment. The judgment records three earlier interim injunctions granted in September and October 2021 and subsequent contempt proceedings. No appeal from a lower decision is stated.