WALLEYS QUARRY LIMITED & Ors v ANGELA WINT AND OTHERS

An interim injunction may be granted against persons unknown where there is an arguable case of unlawful activity, damages would not provide an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience favours relief, and there is a risk of recurrence. The injunction must distinguish unlawful conduct from lawful protest and must not unnecessarily restrain the latter. Where Articles 10 and 11 are engaged, the court must balance those rights against the claimant’s private property rights and rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1. Under section 12 of the Human Rights Act, relief affecting Article 10 rights is permissible at an interim stage where the claimant is likely to succeed at trial.

The claimants operated a landfill site and related premises affected by recurring protests concerning odours from the landfill. They sought injunctive relief against named defendants and persons unknown to restrain interference with access, trespass and nuisance.

On 28 April 2022, His Honour Judge Pearce granted interim relief after adjourning the matter because of concerns about notice. The named defendants subsequently consented to final injunctions. The remaining application concerned interim relief against persons unknown, who had been served by substituted service but had neither acknowledged service nor attended the hearing.

1. Interim relief against persons unknown. The court was satisfied that persons unknown had received adequate notice through email, publication on the claimants’ website and display of the order at the relevant premises. Their absence did not prevent the court from determining the application.
2. The evidence established a proper case for interim injunctive relief. There was an arguable case that some activities exceeded lawful protest. Damages would not be an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience favoured relief, and there was a risk that unlawful activity would recur.
3. Scope of the injunction. The injunction was required to restrain unlawful activity only. It did not prevent peaceful protest carried out without trespass or nuisance. The draft order was amended to ensure that it operated as interim rather than final relief.
4. Convention rights. Even if Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention were engaged, the claimants’ private rights and Article 1 of Protocol 1 rights had priority in the circumstances. Lawful protest remained possible in substantially the same locations, provided it did not take place on the claimants’ land or create a nuisance.
5. If section 12 of the Human Rights Act applied because Article 10 rights were engaged, the claimants were likely, on the balance of probabilities, to succeed at trial. The interim injunction was therefore granted in the revised terms. Final injunctive relief against the named defendants was made by consent, with no order as to costs.

The judgment describes an earlier interim hearing before His Honour Judge Pearce on 28 April 2022. Relief was continued pending the present first-instance hearing because of concerns about notice to the named defendants.