National Highways Limited v Persons Unknown & Ors

Interim and final injunctions may restrain protesters from trespassing on private structures, or on public land to which the public has no right of access. Rights under Articles 10 and 11 do not justify continuing trespass in those circumstances. Where the claimant shows a serious issue to be tried, satisfies section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, has taken reasonable notification steps, lacks an adequate remedy in damages and establishes a favourable balance of convenience, injunctive relief may be granted.

Persons unknown must be defined by reference to unlawful conduct, and an injunction must be clear, precise, geographically limited and temporally reasonable. Alternative service requires good reason. Cost, publicity, technological ability and the size of a defendant group will not generally justify dispensing with personal service where committal for contempt may follow.

National Highways Limited sought injunctive relief against persons unknown and named individuals associated with Just Stop Oil and Animal Rebellion. The claim arose from repeated protests involving trespass on motorway gantries and other structures on the M25. An urgent without-notice injunction had been granted by Chamberlain J on 5 November 2022, with an early return date and permission for alternative service.

At the return hearing the claimant sought continuation of injunctive relief, amendment of the claim form, joinder of named defendants, alternative service and third-party disclosure from chief constables. The defendants did not appear. The central issues concerned trespass, the claim form and proposed defendants, service, and disclosure under CPR 31.17.

1. Substantive relief. The claimant owned and was entitled to possession of the identified structures. Protesters who climbed onto them without consent were trespassers. Articles 10 and 11 rights, even if engaged, did not justify continuing trespass on private land or public land to which the public generally had no right of access. The claimant established a serious issue to be tried, satisfied the higher threshold in section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, had taken reasonable notification steps, and showed that damages were inadequate and that the balance of convenience favoured relief. A precautionary injunction was justified by an imminent and real risk of harm.
2. Terms of injunction. The persons unknown were sufficiently defined by their unlawful conduct. The prohibited acts corresponded to the threatened tort. The definition of “Structure” was sufficiently clear because it was confined to infrastructure to which the general public had no right of access. The geographical and temporal limits were clear and reasonable, and a one-year period was reasonable.
3. Claim form and defendants. Interim relief before service, and in urgent cases before issue, was provisional and strictly conditional. A person could not be subjected to the court’s jurisdiction without notice. The claim form, although issued in Part 7 form, was expressed as a claim for possession of the whole M25 under CPR 55 and required amendment so that the true claim, injunctive relief for trespass, was accurately stated. Just Stop Oil and Animal Rebellion could not remain or be joined as defendants without evidence of a corporate personality or unincorporated association.
4. Service and disclosure. Alternative service of the claim form and further order on the identified persons unknown was permitted under CPR 6.15 and 6.27, subject to revision specifying the required matters. General alternative service on named individuals was refused. Cost, publicity, technological ability and the size of the defendant pool did not justify departing from personal service, particularly where committal for contempt might result. The third-party disclosure order under CPR 31.17 was continued, with liberty to affected parties to apply to set aside or vary it. No further order was made pending revised documents; costs were reserved.