THURROCK COUNCIL & Anor v MADELINE ADAMS & Ors

Local authorities may obtain interim injunctions under Local Government Act 1972, s 222 and Highways Act 1980, s 130 to protect inhabitants and public rights where protest activity creates a sufficiently real and imminent risk of public nuisance or trespass.

Protest on the highway engages articles 10 and 11, but those rights are not absolute. Restrictions may include conduct that is not itself tortious where that is necessary to provide effective protection to others. An injunction against persons unknown may be granted where its terms are clear, precisely defined, geographically and temporally limited, and effective notice can be given.

Thurrock Council and Essex County Council sought continuation of an interim injunction granted without notice against named protesters and persons unknown. The injunction addressed protest activity affecting fuel terminals, highways, petrol stations and tanker movements following extensive protests between 1 and 15 April 2022.

The claim relied on public nuisance and trespass, together with the councils’ statutory functions. The defendants challenged the causes of action, the use of persons unknown, the breadth and enforceability of the order, the power of arrest, service, the duty of candour, the applicability of Human Rights Act 1998, s 12(3), and the absence of a cross-undertaking in damages.

1. Causes of action. The evidence of obstruction, interference with tankers, risks to protesters, police and the public, and disruption to fuel supplies established a sufficient basis in public nuisance. The tunnelling evidence also supported trespass. The councils were entitled to rely on s 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 and s 130 of the Highways Act 1980. The defendants’ activities could be treated as a broad-based composite where individual acts contributed to a shared protest objective.
2. Persons unknown and Convention rights. Following Ineos (CA) and Barking, interim relief could in principle be granted against newcomers. The five-stage HRA enquiry and proportionality assessment identified in Ziegler were satisfied. The restrictions pursued public safety and protection of the rights of others, were rationally connected to those aims, and were proportionate.
3. Scope of relief. The checklist in Ineos (CA), subject to the qualification in Cuadrilla, was met. The evidence established a sufficiently real and imminent risk, effective notice was possible, and the injunction was clear and geographically limited. Conduct not itself tortious could be restrained where necessary to afford effective protection. Paragraph 2.17 was deleted because it was not additionally justified.
4. Ancillary matters. A power of arrest was justified under s 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006. Service by the prescribed methods was appropriate, subject to clearer wording to avoid a chilling effect. Section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 did not directly apply because the injunction regulated where protesters could express themselves, not publication. The failure to raise the possible application of s 12(3) did not require discharge, and the order would in any event have been regranted.
5. Undertaking and outcome. The approach in Kirklees applied. The circumstances were materially different from Afsar (2), and no cross-undertaking in damages was required. There was a serious issue to be tried, damages were inadequate, and the balance of convenience favoured relief. The injunction was continued in amended form; permission to appeal was refused.

The judgment concerned the return date for an interim injunction granted without notice by Ritchie J on 24 April 2022. The High Court continued the injunction, deleted paragraph 2.17 and settled consequential matters.